@mpri88: Men have dodged countless bullets on the battlefield, but have been killed by love#tik_tok #foryoupag #foryou #tiktok #usa_tiktok #usa #usatiktok #ustiktok #tiktokviral #lxmovie #fyp #movie #us #movieclips #Love #betrayal#wars

ahmk
ahmk
Open In TikTok:
Region: US
Monday 03 February 2025 16:30:00 GMT
3075280
182271
493
1134

Music

Download

Comments

chestnut_rice07
Chestnut Rice :
Thank you for your Service, Welcome?
2025-02-04 09:53:17
792
amiel.co
amiel.co :
John shelby?
2025-02-03 18:15:43
454
expedition__
Dez_nut :
why do they do this? poor guy go to war and the girl left him
2025-02-03 21:38:05
3143
appleuser4979851
Edd :
😂😂Typical white American / English soldiers. She probably realised how they 🍇 innocent civilians and laugh about it.
2025-02-05 11:16:17
72
batenzm
skomi :
whats the movie name?
2025-02-03 16:45:31
11
hansdoestaekwondo
Hans 편집 :
It's sad that stuff like these happens in real life
2025-02-04 02:09:03
1991
wtclips101
𝙒𝙏𝙘𝙡𝙞𝙥𝙨® :
"survived 7 bomb attacks in Iraq, but he couldn't survive his fiancé's betrayal" damn
2025-02-04 20:27:47
507
peckher
pete :
this happened to my son ...even the dog ,we were all upset and me ex--his mother did it to me so I know what he was going through
2025-02-03 17:46:14
491
s0ggy_milkbread
S0GGY BREAD⁷ :
I hate people that just leave their military partners when they're deployed
2025-02-05 20:50:48
91
voronadooley
Dooley :
Tommy don show it if you are not going to use it
2025-02-04 07:23:12
14
akpinwamama0
lil kolos :
name of movie pls
2025-02-03 18:41:53
5
odaw0
oDaw :
What happened after that
2025-02-05 10:58:51
5
robertrobert3554
Robert :
could somoane tell me the ending
2025-02-04 18:38:44
0
curisesvn
Cruise_svn :
movie name pls
2025-02-04 07:57:06
1
sulimanyusuf2
cagmadhige :
what is the name movie please
2025-02-04 18:27:02
0
leofletchy067
Leo fletch :
Shaun from gangs of London?
2025-02-04 00:52:22
3
leopabor
Leo Pabor :
good job girl
2025-02-03 23:31:34
9
siktim_seriatciyi
SİKTİM_SERİATCIYI :
what were they doing in Iraq in the first place?
2025-02-19 11:59:58
2
haydenchern
Hayden :
Did he bring his gun on the plane?
2025-02-05 01:15:16
4
_capcut2025_
CC_25_Jelmer :
who is the actor at 47 seconds?
2025-02-17 13:18:18
0
chinessunday.1
Chines Sunday :
name
2025-02-03 19:32:05
1
tunjixchange
Tunjixchange :
Title
2025-02-04 08:23:22
1
isaacplux
Isaac PLus :
title pls
2025-02-04 05:54:13
1
k.s.hansen1978
K.S.Hansen🩵🩵🩷Denmark.🇩🇰 :
Name plz
2025-02-04 12:58:11
1
mrjural
mrjural :
so what happened?
2025-02-05 16:48:26
0
To see more videos from user @mpri88, please go to the Tikwm homepage.

Other Videos

Romans 1 is a complex chapter and admittedly poses the biggest challenge to the affirming position. For the purpose of this short video, the simple point is that just because same sex relations are said to be “contrary to nature” doesn’t rule them out of God’s plan, or else the salvation of the Gentiles would be ruled out as well!  This argument comes from the theologian Eugene Rogers, in his book “Sexuality and the Christian Body.” His argument is based on “God’s acting ‘contrary to’ or ‘beyond’ nature in incorporating the Gentiles into the Jewish olive tree (Rom. 11:24) [and] God’s predilection for irregular sexuality in salvation history, as in the cases of the women named in the genealogy of Jesus.” A lot more can be said about Romans 1, but what is clear from Romans 2 and the argument of the rest of the book is that Romans 1 is *not* primarily a diatribe against homosexuality, it’s a “rhetorical sting operation” where Paul “let his readers regard same-sex sexual activity as a characteristically Gentile sin of excess, one that [Jewish Christians] could temporarily pride themselves on avoiding, until chapter 2 comes in… [and] Jews turn out also to be without excuse.”  Finally, we should also read this chapter keeping in mind that Paul had no understanding of homosexual orientation, so the relationships he would have had in mind were seen as excessive because he would have been picturing what we know as heterosexual people engaging in homosexual sex. . . . . . . . . . . . #f#faithb#beliefc#christianityc#churchB#Bible#christianity#evangelicalismd#deconstructiont#theology#s#sexualitys#sexe#ethics#p#purityculturequeertheology #gaychristian
Romans 1 is a complex chapter and admittedly poses the biggest challenge to the affirming position. For the purpose of this short video, the simple point is that just because same sex relations are said to be “contrary to nature” doesn’t rule them out of God’s plan, or else the salvation of the Gentiles would be ruled out as well! This argument comes from the theologian Eugene Rogers, in his book “Sexuality and the Christian Body.” His argument is based on “God’s acting ‘contrary to’ or ‘beyond’ nature in incorporating the Gentiles into the Jewish olive tree (Rom. 11:24) [and] God’s predilection for irregular sexuality in salvation history, as in the cases of the women named in the genealogy of Jesus.” A lot more can be said about Romans 1, but what is clear from Romans 2 and the argument of the rest of the book is that Romans 1 is *not* primarily a diatribe against homosexuality, it’s a “rhetorical sting operation” where Paul “let his readers regard same-sex sexual activity as a characteristically Gentile sin of excess, one that [Jewish Christians] could temporarily pride themselves on avoiding, until chapter 2 comes in… [and] Jews turn out also to be without excuse.” Finally, we should also read this chapter keeping in mind that Paul had no understanding of homosexual orientation, so the relationships he would have had in mind were seen as excessive because he would have been picturing what we know as heterosexual people engaging in homosexual sex. . . . . . . . . . . . #f#faithb#beliefc#christianityc#churchB#Bible#christianity#evangelicalismd#deconstructiont#theology#s#sexualitys#sexe#ethics#p#purityculturequeertheology #gaychristian

About