PDA

View Full Version : Obama, on sin



Fenris
Jun 3rd 2008, 11:13 PM
From an interview in 2004: (the whole article is here (http://falsani.blogspot.com/2008/04/barack-obama-2004-god-factor-interview.html))


GG:
Do you believe in sin?

OBAMA:
Yes.

GG:
What is sin?

OBAMA:
Being out of alignment with my values.

His values define what sin is?:hmm:

daughter
Jun 3rd 2008, 11:41 PM
Not being out of alignment with GOD's values?

Oh hang on... I forgot... Obama's probably the Messiah... right? Of course he knows what God thinks! Silly me... :rolleyes:

daughter
Jun 3rd 2008, 11:43 PM
Oh, wow... thanks for this Fenris. Very interesting article...

Do you see how he tries to bring in a feel good connection to every religion under the sun? And says there are "many paths" to a "higher power"?

Himself and Oprah Winfrey are channeling the same mumbo jumbo from the look of it!

Here's my favourite quote so far. Proves that Obama is God!

When asked if he prays...

"I think I have an ongoing conversation with God. I think throughout the day, I’m constantly asking myself questions about what I’m doing, why am I doing it. "

quiet dove
Jun 4th 2008, 03:02 AM
Can you say 'one world religion'?

I guess this eliminates the problem of One True God, and it certainly takes care of that pesky Jesus problem.


And I’m not somebody who is always comfortable with language that implies I’ve got a monopoly on the truth, And of course that bothersome sin question

I’m a big believer in toleranceAnd well....learning. Being the masses we are probably to stupid to learn or have much understanding in the first place

I think that religion at it’s best comes with a big dose of doubt. I’m suspicious of too much certainty in the pursuit of understanding just because I think people are limited in their understanding.And can't we just all get along, (you knew that was coming)

I think that, particularly as somebody who’s now in the public realm and is a student of what brings people together and what drives them apart, there’s an enormous amount of damage done around the world in the name of religion and certainty.
I'm just at a loss here

Its’ not formal, me getting on my knees. I think I have an ongoing conversation with God. I think throughout the day, I’m constantly asking myself questions about what I’m doing, why am I doing it.

I’m measuring my actions against that inner voice that for me at least is audible, is active, it tells me where I think I’m on track and where I think I’m off track.

I relinked this for copy write purposes
falsani.blogspot.com (http://falsani.blogspot.com/2008/04/barack-obama-2004-god-factor-interview.html)

Fenris
Jun 4th 2008, 11:44 AM
The arrogance to claim that sin is something that is out of step with HIS values.

I don't see how any religious person of any faith can vote for him.

th1bill
Jun 4th 2008, 01:10 PM
Thank you Fenris, I'll be sending the link around. I always feel that what flows out of the mouth of a man is a solid indicator of the location of his heart.

Free Indeed
Jun 4th 2008, 01:55 PM
Obama is running for President, not Calvinist Theologian. The President, or any public servant for that matter, serves not only Christians, but Jews, Hindus, Muslims, and all other citizens.

It should also be pointed out that Bush has made plenty of statements resembling or even identical to Obama's concerning religion, but I didn't see the Theologically Orthodox Police jump all over him because of it. :rolleyes:

Fenris
Jun 4th 2008, 02:03 PM
Obama is running for President, not Calvinist Theologian. The President, or any public servant for that matter, serves not only Christians, but Jews, Hindus, Muslims, and all other citizens.

Ahem. I started this thread, and I am a Jew. I find his statement very disturbing. It displays an arrogance that he considers his personal values to be the definition of right and wrong. It is not an attractive quality in someone aspiring to be the leader of the free world. Just watch- he says he'll bring people together and rule by consensus. But a man who makes statements like that is going to be a 'my way or the highway' type of leader...

You heard it here first, folks...

Free Indeed
Jun 4th 2008, 02:08 PM
Ahem. I started this thread, and I am a Jew. I find his statement very disturbing. It displays an arrogance that he considers his personal values to be the definition of right and wrong. It is not an attractive quality in someone aspiring to be the leader of the free world. Just watch- he says he'll bring people together and rule by consensus. But a man who makes statements like that is going to be a 'my way or the highway' type of leader...



I may be wrong, but I think you find his statements disturbing not because of the statements themselves, but because of who made them. If Bush or McCain made them, and a Democrat criticized them, I'd wager you'd be singing a different tune.

Also, it's rather comical for a Bush supporter to complain about someone else being a "my way or the highway" type leader. :rofl:

Fenris
Jun 4th 2008, 02:21 PM
I may be wrong, but I think you find his statements disturbing not because of the statements themselves, but because of who made them. If Bush or McCain made them, and a Democrat criticized them, I'd wager you'd be singing a different tune.So you're a mindreader now too? :rolleyes:


Also, it's rather comical for a Bush supporter to complain about someone else being a "my way or the highway" type leader. :rofl:Really?

Bush has worked with party leaders from both sides of the aisle and has used the veto very sparingly. Maybe even too sparingly. He asked for and got senate votes before he engaged in any major activity, including the Iraq war.

Cognitive Dissonance, anyone?:rolleyes:

Steve M
Jun 4th 2008, 02:47 PM
Obama is running for President, not Calvinist Theologian. The President, or any public servant for that matter, serves not only Christians, but Jews, Hindus, Muslims, and all other citizens.

It should also be pointed out that Bush has made plenty of statements resembling or even identical to Obama's concerning religion, but I didn't see the Theologically Orthodox Police jump all over him because of it. :rolleyes:
Er... really? You've never seen anybody go after the President, before and after he was elected, for his statements on religion?

....

Possibly you missed the primaries of 2000, where religion and all possible interpretations of all possible statements were parsed a million times? Or the zillion times after that he's mentioned Islam, which can be found on this board with just a search?

Here; take a look. You'll find the same people saying the same things about President Bush.

http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=22070&highlight=bush+muslim
http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=20639&highlight=bush+muslim
http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=24184&highlight=bush+muslim
http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=7940&highlight=bush+muslim
http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=113576&highlight=bush+muslim

Most of those are from the Election 2004 forums... 2004, mind you.

So, yes, if Bush or McCain said something like that... would we sing a different tune? I certainly don't. Words like that bother me. (if you search hard enough through the links I posted, I believe I say as much).

theabaud
Jun 4th 2008, 03:13 PM
So you're a mindreader now too? :rolleyes:
Really?

Bush has worked with party leaders from both sides of the aisle and has used the veto very sparingly. Maybe even too sparingly. He asked for and got senate votes before he engaged in any major activity, including the Iraq war.

Cognitive Dissonance, anyone?:rolleyes:Classic Neutralization strategy for one suffering from CD, "every one else is doing it why can't I."

redeemedbyhim
Jun 4th 2008, 04:23 PM
Fenris, thank you for helping to expose this man's views and values.
The media certainly won't. So, we must rely on other means.

As Christians it behooves us to dig deeper. God said His people perish from the lack of knowledge/understanding.

That Obama derives truth from his own values should speak loud and clear as to what we face should this man be elected.

I'm sending this link around too. God spare this country from this man. :pray:

EarlyCall
Jun 4th 2008, 04:34 PM
Obama is running for President, not Calvinist Theologian. The President, or any public servant for that matter, serves not only Christians, but Jews, Hindus, Muslims, and all other citizens.

It should also be pointed out that Bush has made plenty of statements resembling or even identical to Obama's concerning religion, but I didn't see the Theologically Orthodox Police jump all over him because of it. :rolleyes:


Ah so true. And yet we find this but one more reason to dislike the man. In spite of so many misguided sheep in America, I'm waiting on Christ to return - not obama to appear.

Jesusinmyheart
Jun 4th 2008, 05:44 PM
Well i'm beginning to wonder if the appearance of Obama as president will herald the return of our long awaited Messiah.
At any rate, i'm really not thrilled with Obama as President due to precisely these kind of things.

I have to say i wonder if Obama got any funding from Ahmadinejhad.... I can just see the two striking up a nice chat.

Shalom,
Tanja

daughter
Jun 5th 2008, 02:36 PM
Fenris! You're the Calvinist Police! :lol: Now EVERYONE can hate you!

I'm also going to send this link round, so that the man's words can speak from themselves.

daughter
Jun 5th 2008, 07:23 PM
Okay... folks, I think we should discuss what Obama says about his faith... and I want to thank Fenris again for bringing this to our attention. I'll start... folks, tell me if I miss anything, or make a big mistake because I'm not American and don't understand your culture.

But here goes.

Obama says,
I am a Christian.
So, I have a deep faith. So I draw from the Christian faith.
On the other hand, I was born in Hawaii where obviously there are a lot of Eastern influences.
I lived in Indonesia, the largest Muslim country in the world, between the ages of six and 10.
My father was from Kenya, and although he was probably most accurately labeled an agnostic, his father was Muslim.
And I’d say, probably, intellectually I’ve drawn as much from Judaism as any other faith.


Obama "draws" from the Christian faith. He doesn't say what he draws from it, or what that faith entails.

Then, in case he comes across as "too" Christian, despite his not having cited a single Christian doctrine, he assures us that "on the other hand" he was born in Hawaii, and somehow absorbed by osmosis some Eastern influences. (again, he doesn't tell us what they are.)

Then, he tells us that his father was an agnostic, his grandfather a Muslim. He doesn't tell us what that means to him.

To make sure everything is covered, he wraps up with the assertion that he's "drawn" from Judaism in an intellectual way... again, we don't know what he's drawn from it.

This statement of faith is intended to make him seem like a safe and sympathising universal option. Muslim, Christian, Jewish, "eastern", agnostic... you name it, he's it!

Now he goes into more detail about his "Christian faith."



So, I’m rooted in the Christian tradition. I believe that there are many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people.

How is that Christian? Many paths? Higher power? It could just as easily be Buddhist... Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the light." That doesn't seem to encourage faith in a higher power! At this point Christians should be realising that he's not what he puports to be.

When asked, "how long have you been a Christian...


I was raised more by my mother and my mother was Christian.

That doesn't answer the question! Come on... I know he's a politician... but he could have started with that comment, and then finished with a description of how he became Christian... unless of course he never did.


my mother, who I think had as much influence on my values as anybody, was not someone who wore her religion on her sleeve. We’d go to church for Easter. She wasn’t a church lady.

Obviously not... she went on to marry a Muslim! But, apparently he wasn't practising. :hmm:


my mother was deeply spiritual person, and would spend a lot of time talking about values and give me books about the world’s religions, and talk to me about them. And I think always, her view always was that underlying these religions were a common set of beliefs about how you treat other people and how you aspire to act, not just for yourself but also for the greater good.

So... he would have us believe that he is a Christian by a process of osmosis (kind of like he's into Eastern religions because he was born in Hawaii) because his mother was Christian. His mother expressed her Christianity by going to church at Easter, marrying a Muslim, talking to him about world religions, raising him to be kind to other people... I think that's it. I don't see how that is Christian. Spiritual, yes... but Christian?

Now, when he gets involved in the church, it's in order to help the local community. I have no problem with helping local communities. We should all do it... but again, I don't see Christ in this part of his "testimony." I'm not saying that activities with the civil rights movement, and helping folks who have lost their jobs isn't compatible with the church... but it's not the sole point of the church... okay, moving on. He's working for the churches to help the local communities. Good work... still not a sign he is a Christian yet though... could be on the way though. Keep reading...


it was in those places where I think what had been more of an intellectual view of religion deepened Okay... that's nice. What is it deepening into... are you seeing Christ in the little old men and women of your neighbourhood?

I became much more familiar with the ongoing tradition of the historic black church and it’s importance in the community.Okay... I can see that. Church is central to a Christian community... what did you learn from it?

And the power of that culture to give people strength in very difficult circumstances, and the power of that church to give people courage against great odds.It's not the church... it's the love of GOD that is giving them courage... and since you say you're a Christian, what about Christ?

Jeremiah Wright, became a good friend.
We'll move swiftly on... we all know how that turned out!


I joined that church and committed myself to Christ in that church.

Ah... he must be a Christian! He went up to an altar call!

I retain from my childhood and my experiences growing up a suspicion of dogma. And I’m not somebody who is always comfortable with language that implies I’ve got a monopoly on the truth, or that my faith is automatically transferable to others.He's born again... but not going to use the phrase in case anybody distrusts it... but he wants folks who trust the phrase to associate it with him... and those that don't to be comfortable about his "dogma!" (or lack thereof...)

When asked does he pray... This is probably the most alarming thing for me...

I think I have an ongoing conversation with God. I think throughout the day, I’m constantly asking myself questions about what I’m doing, why am I doing it.
Surely he's not saying that he's GOD is he???

When asked "who is Jesus to you."


Jesus is an historical figure for me, and he’s also a bridge between God and man, in the Christian faith, and one that I think is powerful precisely because he serves as that means of us reaching something higher.

And he’s also a wonderful teacher

So far Christians will be so grateful that he at least seems to be Christian that in today's society they probably won't notice that his description of Jesus is exactly what any member of a cult, or Islam, or Sikhism, or Buddhism would say... but not what a Christian would say. Christians are so used to be being apologetic about who we think Jesus is that we grasp at any little crumb, and imagine it's a feast. THIS should put paid to the myth that Obama's a Christian.

Okay... I forgot to say... Obama thinks that when he does his speeches the Holy Spirit comes down.

Despite the fact that Jesus is only a bridge, a teacher, a historical figure.

I'll stop now... this is depressing me.

Clavicula_Nox
Jun 5th 2008, 07:44 PM
So far Christians will be so grateful that he at least seems to be Christian that in today's society they probably won't notice that his description of Jesus is exactly what any member of a cult, or Islam, or Sikhism, or Buddhism would say... but not what a Christian would say. Christians are so used to be being apologetic about who we think Jesus is that we grasp at any little crumb, and imagine it's a feast. THIS should put paid to the myth that Obama's a Christian.

Daughter, you hit on something there. Before I became born again, that is almost exactly what I would say about Jesus. Almost word for word, it's uncanny.

Free Indeed
Jun 5th 2008, 08:29 PM
I just don't see what the big deal is. The Father of our Country, George Washington, was not a Christian (he was a Unitarian, Deist, and Universalist). Same thing for Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, Lincoln, etc.

But now, all of a sudden, everyone seems to want a theologian for president (thus my earlier comments about the theology police). But, in reality, it seems that our Unitarian leaders of yesterday did a heckuva better job than our "Christian" leaders of today.

Now, as to why this is, I don't know, and have no interest in debating it here. But it does go to show that all this doctrinal stuff is a blinder from getting to the real (and secular) issues which is the actual *job* of the President.

I'm also sort of surprised to see Fenrris still on the wagon. It's both ironic and paradoxical that I, who almost always disagree with him, would probably be the most likely to vote for him because I wouldn't hold him to a theological test. :hmm:

redeemedbyhim
Jun 5th 2008, 08:36 PM
Daughter said,


tell me if I miss anything, or make a big mistake because I'm not American and don't understand your culture.

I can't see one mistake in your post. Not one.
You summed it up perfectly, in my estimation.

And perhaps said it best when you said:


This statement of faith is intended to make him seem like a safe and sympathising universal option. Muslim, Christian, Jewish, "eastern", agnostic... you name it, he's it!

What better means to introduce or pave the way for the man of perdition?

Obama scares me in the sense that he would usher in a dangerous philosophy of "one world" everything.

I pray he does not get elected.

redeemedbyhim
Jun 5th 2008, 08:51 PM
I just don't see what the big deal is. The Father of our Country, George Washington, was not a Christian (he was a Unitarian, Deist, and Universalist). Same thing for Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, Lincoln, etc.

But now, all of a sudden, everyone seems to want a theologian for president (thus my earlier comments about the theology police). But, in reality, it seems that our Unitarian leaders of yesterday did a heckuva better job than our "Christian" leaders of today.

Now, as to why this is, I don't know, and have no interest in debating it here. But it does go to show that all this doctrinal stuff is a blinder from getting to the real (and secular) issues which is the actual *job* of the President.

I'm also sort of surprised to see Fenrris still on the wagon. It's both ironic and paradoxical that I, who almost always disagree with him, would probably be the most likely to vote for him because I wouldn't hold him to a theological test. :hmm:

We should expect to know the what has defined this man's views.
And for him to claim Christ and say there are many paths to God flies in the face of Christianity and truth.
If we can't trust him to know this, how can we trust him on anything else?

I don't want my president to be a preacher of the Gospel, per say, but if he claims Christ he better live up to at least the fundamental beliefs that Jesus is the only way.

Fenris
Jun 5th 2008, 09:18 PM
I'm also sort of surprised to see Fenrris still on the wagon. It's both ironic and paradoxical that I, who almost always disagree with him, would probably be the most likely to vote for him because I wouldn't hold him to a theological test. :hmm:It isn't a theological test. It's what his theology says about who he is. The man believes that sin is anything outside of his own personal values. The arrogance of making such a statement is stunning.

daughter
Jun 6th 2008, 12:33 AM
Knight Templar... I'm about to say something that will no doubt deeply offend you, and possibly other Christians, including some who may not share your politics.

Before I say it, I have to say that I'm a very left wing person... to a very ridiculous extent that you could check on the internet if you're interested. I've been a grassroots political human, animal and anti war campaigner for over a decade. In other words, I'm not a republican.

The offensive thing that I have to say is this.

Fenris is not a Christian, yet he instantly cottoned on to the problem in Obama's "theology." Obama defines sin not by what God says, but by what he says.

Maybe other US presidents weren't Christian. But I seriously don't believe that they set themselves up as the arbiter of right, wrong, sin, righteousness, as Obama does.

There is a God, and HE is the arbiter of Justice. Franklin is not in the same boat as Obama, in the slightest. And I'm not surprised to see Fenris "on the same wagon" as the others who doubt Obama's dishonest confessions of faith. What is it about Fenris that makes you think Fenris isn't entitled to a negative opinion about Obama? Is Fenris not allowed to believe that sin is defined by God's point of view, and not some mans? Is he not allowed to believe that prayer is not simply "thinking to oneself?"

Fenris
Jun 6th 2008, 10:16 AM
I won't make any personal observations about people here. But there is a large segment of people calling themselves Jews whose actual religion is liberalism. I assume there are similar adherents of other religions...

Steve M
Jun 6th 2008, 10:57 AM
I won't make any personal observations about people here. But there is a large segment of people calling themselves Jews whose actual religion is liberalism. I assume there are similar adherents of other religions...
It's certainly been true of Christianity in my experience...

Fenris
Jun 6th 2008, 01:07 PM
Messiah In Our Midst

The One, the Anointed.

By Jonah Goldberg

Is Barack Obama the Messiah?

Before we answer that question, let me vent for a moment. In 2000 I was cruelly denied the Pulitzer despite being the only columnist in America to ask the pressing question: Is Al Gore an alien? The evidence was there for all to see. He was born nine months after the mysterious alien sighting at Roswell, N.M. His weird syntax and verbal rhythms are otherworldly. He often refers to “earth” or “this planet” as if he’s just passing through, and he once angrily complained to the Washington Post that it had printed a picture of the earth from outer space “upside down.”

There is no “upside down” in space — unless Gore had his childhood view in mind.

At least I’m not in the wilderness this time. Lots of people have pondered the possibility that Barack is our Divine Redeemer. There are websites dedicated to the question “Is Barack Obama the Messiah?” Google that question and you’ll get more than 35,000 hits. (Enter just the words “Messiah” and “Obama” and you’ll get nearly 10 times that.)

But there’s more concrete evidence. Since Obama declared his candidacy, there have been remarkably few biblical plagues. And lions and lambs seem open to bilateral negotiations.

Obama’s apostles are hard to dismiss. Oprah simply calls him “The One,” because “we need politicians who know how to be the truth.” (Jesus says in John 14:6 “I am the way, the truth ...”) Oprah goes on to say Obama will help us “evolve to a higher plane,” which would put Obama in the role of our Intelligent Designer.

According to the New York Times, Obama’s volunteers are taught to eschew discussions of the issues and instead “testify” about how they “came to Obama.”

For many, he’s no retro-redeemer, but a 21st-century savior, a Matrix-messiah and Neo for our modern-day Nineveh. Self-help guru Deepak Chopra dubs Obama “a quantum leap in American consciousness,” while prominent “leadership coach” Eve Konstantine assures us that, “He’s our product out of the all-knowing quantum field of intelligence.”

Obama willing, I will never be stuck next to these people on a plane.

Michelle Obama is arguably Obamanity’s greatest evangelist, even though she has a streak of Old Testament smiting and wrath to her. She insists her husband has redeemed the entire nation (hence her newfound pride in America). She proclaims her husband is the sort of leader who will fix our broken souls. But don’t hope for grace on the cheap. “The change Barack is talking about is hard,” she insists, “so don’t get too excited, because Barack is going to demand that you, too, be different.”

Those of you who thought we had a Second Amendment to keep government from fixing your soul are so 20th century. Evolve already.

And then there’s the Gospel according to Obama himself. In January, he told Dartmouth students that they will know to vote for him because “... a light will shine through that window, a beam of light will come down upon you, you will experience an epiphany, and you will suddenly realize that you must go to the polls and vote for Barack.”

When asked in an interview what sin is, Obama defined it as “Being out of alignment with my values.” Apparently, the editor failed to capitalize the “M” in “My.”

But such mistakes can be forgiven, for Hillary has been cast out and the nomination is nigh. So we can get cracking on fixing America — and ourselves.

“I am absolutely certain,” Obama proclaimed in his victory speech, “that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs for the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal. This was the moment — this was the time — when we came together to remake this great nation ...”

Now, if you’re under the mistaken impression that sick people had some care, or that a few jobs were to be found prior to June 2008, or that maybe — just maybe — the oceans don’t rise and fall with the election returns, or that America itself doesn’t need “remaking,” you’re not one of the “ones we’ve been waiting for.”

But you might be one of the ones Al Gore has been waiting for. You’d understand if you realized “Earth in the Balance” is a cookbook.

resbmc
Jun 6th 2008, 01:28 PM
there has never been a president who has been attacked every DAY while they, were is office, the news media of this country tells nothing but lies, Satan, he is trying to destroy us from within, he is almost there, and how can you be a Christian, and believe the way the Obamination thinks. Even the Jews in the Old Testament, when they had no Judges, worshiped God in their own way, that is Obamaism. We make god in our image, Satan has control, fasten your seat belts, cause the road is going to be diastorous for the US in the next 8 years. Come Lord Jesus, Come

daughter
Jun 6th 2008, 03:29 PM
Obamination... Wow, that's a good one to add to the list.
Obaminator,
Obamessiah,
Oba One Kenobe,
any other titles to add to the list?

I agree things look pretty bad...

Jesusinmyheart
Jun 6th 2008, 07:57 PM
cause the road is going to be diastorous for the US in the next 8 years.Guess what figure that comes to as far as prediction of when the world would end?

2008+8 years equals 2012......

I agree... this is an obamination that's about to hit us.

Daughter, i would end your above post about Obama's christian status with:

I'll stop now......you want to vote for the Obamination which causes desolation? Think again.


Shalom,
Tanja

daughter
Jun 6th 2008, 08:12 PM
Well, we're not allowed to name any names, or set any dates, regarding the end times. Things have looked ropey before, and the world continued. For example, when Kennedy was shot my Granny was fully expecting him to come back to life three days later and herald in the end of days... And when the Pope was shot all the Paisleyites in Northern Ireland insisted that he was the anti Christ because he survived. We know that the man we're talking about suffers a mortal head injury, and miraculously recovers - and the whole world wonders after him.

But you heard it here first - just in case something of that sort does happen with the obomination!

Of course... we could all be so keen for Christ to come that we're seeing more to this than is there. But I'll be honest... I don't think so. Anyone who thinks he commands the oceans, defines sin, and prays by talking to himself, is NOT someone who is safe in any position of power... whether or not he is the "one". And we all know I don't think he's elijah!

Jesusinmyheart
Jun 6th 2008, 09:26 PM
Daughter, even if i came up with a year, i'm not date setting as i'm not setting a particular date in that year.
We are told as per scripture that we can know the season, and a season is very limited in perspective of time.
Yeshua actually even gave us some indicators when that season would be near.

Anyways, i came here to give the following link as it really first ion with this discussion about Obama's multicultural background.

When one reads the opening one would be very tempted to shout what we all fear about this man.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080606/ap_on_re_eu/obama_s_world_challenge

Some key paragraphs read:

LONDON - Here's all Barack Obama has to do to meet the world's expectations if he's elected president of the United States:

End an unpopular war in Iraq, heal misery in nations hit by the global food crisis and stop global warming in addition to building bridges to Muslim countries and reverse the unilateralist approach of the Bush administration.

The euphoria that has swept much of the world at the sight of a young and idealistic black politician seizing the Democratic nomination has generated waves of anticipation.

Yet Obama, precisely because of his lofty yet undefined message of hope and renewal, can be all things for all people — a blank canvas on which to project the world's longings.

And also:

Perhaps most of all, people see his victory as a sign of a fundamental shift in race relations in the United States — one that might grow into a global movement for healing racial and cultural divisions.

As well as:

Some analysts said Obama's multicultural background and vision of engaging the world on the key issues of the day would help repair America's tattered world image.

"I do think Obama embodies the sort of change that would go the fastest and quickest toward changing the United States' reputation abroad," said Tomas Valasek, director of foreign policy and defense at the Center for European Reform in London.

It just raises red flags for me all around.

Shalom,
Tanja

redeemedbyhim
Jun 6th 2008, 10:58 PM
there has never been a president who has been attacked every DAY while they, were is office, the news media of this country tells nothing but lies, Satan, he is trying to destroy us from within, he is almost there, and how can you be a Christian, and believe the way the Obamination thinks. Even the Jews in the Old Testament, when they had no Judges, worshiped God in their own way, that is Obamaism. We make god in our image, Satan has control, fasten your seat belts, cause the road is going to be diastorous for the US in the next 8 years. Come Lord Jesus, Come

I've wondered the same things. How can one be a Christian and support this man who looks within for his answers, prays by talking to "himself", defines sin by his "own" values? Says Jesus is one way, not the ONLY WAY to God.
Not to mention supports abortion on demand thru all nine months, views babies concieved by teens as "punishment"....didn't God say children were a blessing and a heritage?
Supports gay marragie, which God says is an abomanation, he wants us dependant on government and not God, so I don't see how a Christian can vote for him.
I may not have a single thing to do with the day the son of perdition arrives, but I'm sure not going to vote for someone who sounds like he would welcome such a one.

Kahtar
Jun 6th 2008, 11:34 PM
Guess what figure that comes to as far as prediction of when the world would end?

2008+8 years equals 2012......
Shalom,
Tanja:eek: I coulda sworn it equaled 2016, but then my math isn't what it used to be.


Just had to give ya a hard time.:lol:

Ekeak
Jun 7th 2008, 08:10 PM
Obama is running for President, not Calvinist Theologian. The President, or any public servant for that matter, serves not only Christians, but Jews, Hindus, Muslims, and all other citizens.

It should also be pointed out that Bush has made plenty of statements resembling or even identical to Obama's concerning religion, but I didn't see the Theologically Orthodox Police jump all over him because of it. :rolleyes:

His statements were backed by reality. Obama's are backed by a lie.
I choose to judge Obama because he has a chance to be President of the United States, the likes of a king. I think that's legal... he's not a common man anyway. :P

Jesusinmyheart
Jun 7th 2008, 09:28 PM
I coulda sworn it equaled 2016, but then my math isn't what it used to be.


Just had to give ya a hard time.Aiiyeeee, you're right, well as i was typing this, i was thinking about one term being 4 years, and had read an article about his total possible time as president being 8, and so i accidentally wrote the figure 8 instead of 4 for one term.
And the time for me to edit this post has passed..... don't think i can't add :blush:

Shalom,
Tanja

Jesusinmyheart
Jun 7th 2008, 09:52 PM
Check out this stuff about how the world reacts to Obama:

http://www.reuters.com/news/video?videoId=84182&src=vidAd1&refresh=true

Be arwae that this is a video.

It really makes me shudder to think how popular he seems to already be the world over.....

Shalom,
Tanja

Free Indeed
Jun 10th 2008, 05:43 PM
The offensive thing that I have to say is this.

Fenris is not a Christian, yet he instantly cottoned on to the problem in Obama's "theology." Obama defines sin not by what God says, but by what he says.

Maybe other US presidents weren't Christian. But I seriously don't believe that they set themselves up as the arbiter of right, wrong, sin, righteousness, as Obama does.

I'm not offended, and everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

The fact is, though, is that *everybody* sets themselves up as arbiters of right and wrong. Now obviously, especially on a religious forum like this one, some will protest that it is God who establishes these things. In the big picture, that's true. But it's left up to us to determine what God really intends to be values and what are not. For example, some guy could claim that God told him it was ok to kick puppies. It's therefore up to us to determine whether or not that is true.

Obviously, we would have to conclude it's not. As Christians, our values and God's values are the same. Since Obama is himself a Christian, I have no reason to doubt his moral philosophy.

EarlyCall
Jun 10th 2008, 10:47 PM
I'm not offended, and everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

The fact is, though, is that *everybody* sets themselves up as arbiters of right and wrong. Now obviously, especially on a religious forum like this one, some will protest that it is God who establishes these things. In the big picture, that's true. But it's left up to us to determine what God really intends to be values and what are not. For example, some guy could claim that God told him it was ok to kick puppies. It's therefore up to us to determine whether or not that is true.

Obviously, we would have to conclude it's not. As Christians, our values and God's values are the same. Since Obama is himself a Christian, I have no reason to doubt his moral philosophy.

Well, can you help us tie in his moral philosophy with his stand on abortion? Can you explain why anyone should believe obama when his actions are contrary to God and His word? I'm speaking specifically now to abortion and the g*y issue. Explain how that reinforces your belief he is a Christian? Maybe you should start with what you think a Christian is.

Libre
Jun 10th 2008, 11:22 PM
Just to interject this. Once upon a time, a man wasn't asked what sin was. In the public arena, one kept his beliefs a bit more private. Like a woman's age, one didn't ask. Until now. Bush saying his favorite philosopher was Jesus Christ opened the door, in a way. Now candidates are grilled on their faith and then grilled again if they aren't comfortable with the question, or, God forbid, come up with an answer the questioner disagrees with. Or the questioner's audience.

There is no religious test for elected office. Yet some persist in fabricating one. We should be electing the best man or woman for the job, not looking for a spiritual leader in office. A good man or woman, sure. But not a spiritual guide or mentor or teacher or preacher. Not to worry. We are a very long way from electing a Hindu or atheist or whatever. And if we did, so what? If they upheld the Constitution and the laws of the land, isn't that what we want?

Food for thought.

Pat

redeemedbyhim
Jun 10th 2008, 11:28 PM
Just to interject this. Once upon a time, a man wasn't asked what sin was. In the public arena, one kept his beliefs a bit more private. Like a woman's age, one didn't ask. Until now. Bush saying his favorite philosopher was Jesus Christ opened the door, in a way. Now candidates are grilled on their faith and then grilled again if they aren't comfortable with the question, or, God forbid, come up with an answer the questioner disagrees with. Or the questioner's audience.

There is no religious test for elected office. Yet some persist in fabricating one. We should be electing the best man or woman for the job, not looking for a spiritual leader in office. A good man or woman, sure. But not a spiritual guide or mentor or teacher or preacher. Not to worry. We are a very long way from electing a Hindu or atheist or whatever. And if we did, so what? If they upheld the Constitution and the laws of the land, isn't that what we want?

Food for thought.

Pat

Once upon a time abortion wasn't legal and the idea of gay marriage wasn't considered an option. It wasn't considered a crime to pray in school or post the 10 Commandments, either.
Times have changed and we better know what kind of spirituality a candidate adheres to.

Fenris
Jun 11th 2008, 01:32 AM
Since Obama is himself a Christian, I have no reason to doubt his moral philosophy.

Many people throughout history have claimed to be Christian yet did some horrible things.

Libre
Jun 11th 2008, 02:10 AM
Once upon a time, slave owning was a state right. Women could not vote. People justified these things from the Bible. It was sinful to go against what God clearly stated in the Holy scriptures. But we see it differently now.

Go back further. Puritans couldn't worship freely. Nor Quakers. Nor Baptists.

Come forward. Politicians want to control our bedrooms and wombs. What's next? Thought police? Follow Biblical laws or go to jail? Oh, wait, didn't we fight a war so kings, who derived their right to rule from the church, could not tell us how to live? So that same church could neither tell us how to live nor how to worship? Isn't that a matter of our own conscience before God?

Because if we take this forward further, we will be returning to the past and history will repeat itself. Is that what we want?

Pat

daughter
Jun 11th 2008, 08:22 AM
Pat, I don't think we're in any danger of biblical laws being imposed by any government, or of being sent to prison for not obeying the Bible. We're going very far in the other direction. We live in a society where the youngest generation are being groomed by television in a way that would have horrified our grandparents. Yesterday I had to tell my son's school that a girl in his class, twelve years old, was describing fellatio and other sexual acts in graphic detail. Turns out that this is not at all uncommon, even in a "Christian" school, and that though they will investigate it from a child safety point of view, they find that many kids who talk like that get it from television.

Do you honestly think in a society where it's becoming the norm for children to describe sexual acts in the most vile of language, where nobody blinks anymore when a little girl jokes about performing oral sex on somebody's father, that we're in any danger AT ALL of returning to biblical principles? And could it possibly be so bad if we did?

Libre
Jun 11th 2008, 02:53 PM
Daughter, when did it become normal for someone to use such language as you have on a Christian board?

But I do agree that parents are failing in their most important job. It takes a village to raise a child, and we are all failing in some way. The desire to return to a former Leave It To Beaver time is a reaction to these times. As it has always been. The Greek philosophers moaned about aimless youth, roaming about and causing trouble.

I'm not really worried about biblical laws being imposed by government. We are too diverse a society for that to happen, thankfully. For you know that the laws imposed would be from the strictest interpretation by men who did not know their Lord and only wanted power. Much like Islamic law.

But don't sell our society and youth short. The exceptions seem more the rule, but they aren't. They are only sensationalized by whoever is observing and reporting. If it bleeds, or is otherwise foul, it leads.

Pat

Free Indeed
Jun 11th 2008, 03:43 PM
Many people throughout history have claimed to be Christian yet did some horrible things.

Very true. Just look at the Bush administration.

Free Indeed
Jun 11th 2008, 03:46 PM
Well, can you help us tie in his moral philosophy with his stand on abortion? Can you explain why anyone should believe obama when his actions are contrary to God and His word?

This is a red herring. Neither Jesus nor the Bible ever said anything about abortion. However, we *do* know that the Republicans support policies that are the *exact opposite* of what Jesus taught in the Bible.

Fenris
Jun 11th 2008, 03:55 PM
Very true. Just look at the Bush administration.
Uh..right. I was thinking of the Crusades or the Inquisition, but sure, whatever example works for you.

So Obama claiming to be Christian shouldn't make you feel safe...

Unless you suspect his religion is 'liberal', not Christian. Which would make you very happy, I suppose.

Fenris
Jun 11th 2008, 03:57 PM
This is a red herring. Neither Jesus nor the Bible ever said anything about abortion.
Yes, I am sure if Jesus was alive today he would be a pro-choice anti-war communist who is in favor of gay marriage... :rolleyes:

Libre
Jun 11th 2008, 04:17 PM
I love these straw man arguments. Arguing a whole group is wrong because of the extremes that the group may encompass. And the old thing of sending people down a false trail with untrue charges based on the fallacy. Liberals are not evil, most are people of faith, and many are born again. They don't support baby-killing, and are not communist if they opposed war. Heck, the communists have proven to as warlike as capitalists and democracies, regardless of what Bush says. I looked, and Pogo was right. The enemy is us.

As for Jesus, He was always giving people choices. Asking questions was one of His main teaching methods. He was non-violent, and He didn't seem to care about marital status over one's spiritual status. Look at the woman at the well incident. And the clearing of the moneychangers, BTW, was a driving out, not a whuppin'. The cords He used were like those cattle drivers use. They don't whip the cattle, they merely encourage them in a certain direction.

Pat

Fenris
Jun 11th 2008, 04:24 PM
I love these straw man arguments. Arguing a whole group is wrong because of the extremes that the group may encompass. ...They don't support baby-killing,Um, what?

Can you name a single self-identified liberal who is pro-life?

Theophilus
Jun 11th 2008, 04:39 PM
As for Jesus, He was always giving people choices. Asking questions was one of His main teaching methods. He was non-violent, and He didn't seem to care about marital status over one's spiritual status. Look at the woman at the well incident. And the clearing of the moneychangers, BTW, was a driving out, not a whuppin'. The cords He used were like those cattle drivers use. They don't whip the cattle, they merely encourage them in a certain direction.

Well, the Greek says phragellion, defined as a whip or scourge...an instrument to inflict pain, per Webster's. That's some pretty stout "encouragement," I'd say. ;)

Not much of a choice, either...stay and get whipped, or leave and escape the "encouragement."

I wonder what questions He was asking during the "encouragement"?

"Had enough?"

"You want some more of this?"

:lol:

Libre
Jun 11th 2008, 04:39 PM
Plenty of Democrat liberals - most in fact, who are and have been and seed to be, in public office, are pro-life. Pro-life is a label co-opted by conservatives and made to mean anti-abortion. But pro-life means "for life". Democrats who say they are pro-life mean that they are also pro-choice (which has been construed to mean what it does not) because we believe in upholding the right to LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We also believe in choice, ergo the pro-choice tag. Most beleive one should have the right to choose when it comes to personal and private things. This is the crux of the matter. Conservatives do not believe there is a right to choose in these matters.

Pat

Theophilus
Jun 11th 2008, 04:41 PM
Plenty of Democrat liberals - most in fact, who are and have been and seed to be, in public office, are pro-life. Pro-life is a label co-opted by conservatives and made to mean anti-abortion. But pro-life means "for life". Democrats who say they are pro-life mean that they are also pro-choice (which has been construed to mean what it does not) because we believe in upholding the right to LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We also believe in choice, ergo the pro-choice tag. Most beleive one should have the right to choose when it comes to personal and private things. This is the crux of the matter. Conservatives do not believe there is a right to choose in these matters.

Pat

Pat, if you're not a politician, you oughta' be. ;)

Libre
Jun 11th 2008, 04:45 PM
Well, the Greek says phragellion, defined as a whip or scourge...an instrument to inflict pain, per Webster's. That's some pretty stout "encouragement," I'd say. ;)

Not much of a choice, either...stay and get whipped, or leave and escape the "encouragement."

I wonder what questions He was asking during the "encouragement"?

"Had enough?"

"You want some more of this?"

:lol:More of what? You are a blip on the screen of life.

Beyond that, I can't honestly imagine Jesus scourging anyone. If you can, I'm so sorry about that. And a rope of rushes is not a very intimidation scourge. The word can also mean just a whip. Like the switch your granny may have cut from a willow tree? Enough to make you run, but not enough to inflict real maiming.

Pat

Theophilus
Jun 11th 2008, 04:53 PM
More of what? You are a blip on the screen of life.

Beyond that, I can't honestly imagine Jesus scourging anyone. If you can, I'm so sorry about that. And a rope of rushes is not a very intimidation scourge. The word can also mean just a whip. Like the switch your granny may have cut from a willow tree? Enough to make you run, but not enough to inflict real maiming.

Pat
Actually, Pat, my "Had enough?" and "You want some more of this?" were my "...Wonder what Jesus was asking?" questions. They were not directed at you...sorry this "blip" wasn't more clear. ;)

Can you give me some more info about this "rope of rushes" thing? I've read a lot of commentaries, heard a lot of sermons, and study the Word...but I've never gotten an inkling that Jesus wasn't a little more than ticked off here.

I think people are uncomfortable with the notion that "...holy Jesus, meek and mild..." might not have been as mild as people think.

In fact, if you can't picture Jesus as being righteously indignant and doing some "thrashing" on folks who deserve it...I'm sorry about that.

Libre
Jun 11th 2008, 05:29 PM
sxoiniđon diminutive of schoinos (a rush or flag-plant, of uncertain derivation)Transliterated WordPhonetic Spelling Schoinion skhoy-nee'-on http://www.studylight.org/images/audio.gif (http://www.studylight.org/cgi-bin/Lexicon.pl?id=4979g.rm) Parts of SpeechTDNT Noun Neuter None Definition


a cord or rope made of rushes
a rope

Barnes' Notes on the New Testament:
Verse 15. A scourge. A whip.
Of small cords. This whip was made as an emblem of authority, and also for the purpose of driving from the temple the cattle which had been brought there for sale. There is no evidence that he used any violence to the men engaged in that unhallowed traffic. The original word implies that these cords were made of twisted rushes or reeds-- probably the ancient material for making ropes.

Adam Clarke Commentary:
St. John alone mentions the scourge of rushes, and the casting out of the sheep and oxen. Besides, there is a considerable difference in our Lord's manner of doing it: in the cleansing mentioned by the three evangelists, he assumes a vast deal of authority, and speaks more pointedly concerning himself, than he appears to do in this cleansing mentioned by St. John

Hope this helps.

Pat

Fenris
Jun 11th 2008, 05:31 PM
Pat, if you're not a politician, you oughta' be. ;)
Yah, really.

It depends on what your definition of the word 'is' is.

Theophilus
Jun 11th 2008, 05:38 PM
a cord or rope made of rushes

Thanks...I've learned something.:)


(:lol: It would still hurt, though)

Love,

Blip

daughter
Jun 11th 2008, 05:54 PM
Hi Pat.

I'm sorry, I used the expression because I was so shocked and horrified that it was the norm in my son's Christian school, and I needed to get across to posters just how our society is falling. When I told the teachers yesterday what this girl had said they weren't shocked at all, and I found that horrendously upsetting. Obviously I'm sorry I caused offense, but you've comforted me more than you know, because your reaction is one of disgust... which is how I'd expect a Christian to react.

Again, I'm sorry if my use of the term upset you - I was very distressed by the whole incident, hence the harshness of the previous post. Thank you for reaffirming my faith in Christian adults.

Libre
Jun 11th 2008, 06:03 PM
:hug::kiss:

Pat

daughter
Jun 11th 2008, 06:12 PM
This is a red herring. Neither Jesus nor the Bible ever said anything about abortion. However, we *do* know that the Republicans support policies that are the *exact opposite* of what Jesus taught in the Bible.
Don't tell me that you think Jesus was pro abortion!!!

Libre
Jun 11th 2008, 06:44 PM
As for me, I can see Jesus dealing with the situation that got a women in such a fix in the first place - the condition of her heart towards God. If she'd had an abortion from the herbalist, He would tell her to go and sin no more.

If she were thinking about having one, I'm sure He'd have a stopper of an answer, which would neither condemn her nor condone what she was planning. Whatever it would be, she would go away changed. If we could respond exactly as Jesus, most of society's ills would be gone by now, I'd say.

Pat

Fenris
Jun 11th 2008, 07:42 PM
If she were thinking about having one, I'm sure He'd have a stopper of an answer, which would neither condemn her nor condone what she was planning.

Ah.

So in other words, we don't know if Jesus would be pro-choice or pro-life. Nothing in the body of works on his life known as the New Testament suggests that he would take any stance at all on the issue...:hmm:

Free Indeed
Jun 11th 2008, 07:52 PM
Ah.

So in other words, we don't know if Jesus would be pro-choice or pro-life.

Maybe not. But we *do* know his teachings opposed the Republicans on practically all the other issues.

And we also know it was the conservatives who conspired against him, beat him, scourged him, and demanded his death, when even the pagan governor Pilate recognized his purity and wanted to free him.

Fenris
Jun 11th 2008, 08:03 PM
Maybe not. But we *do* know his teachings opposed the Republicans on practically all the other issues.
You mean he supported the idea of forcibly taking people's money and giving it away to other people? I don't have that passage in my bible....:hmm:



And we also know it was the conservatives who conspired against him, beat him, scourged him, and demanded his death, when even the pagan governor Pilate recognized his purity and wanted to free him.

Wow, really? You mean they had card-carrying Republicans back then? :hmm:

Libre
Jun 11th 2008, 08:07 PM
Do you think it's just life? What about those who thought their lives not too dear to die for the cause of Christ? It's eternal life we seek, and have in Jesus. From the eternal view, it isn't always about the physical.

Pat

Fenris
Jun 11th 2008, 08:17 PM
Do you think it's just life? What about those who thought their lives not too dear to die for the cause of Christ? It's eternal life we seek, and have in Jesus. From the eternal view, it isn't always about the physical.

Pat
So unborn fetuses killed in an abortion go straight to Jesus?

Free Indeed
Jun 11th 2008, 08:25 PM
You mean he supported the idea of forcibly taking people's money and giving it away to other people? I don't have that passage in my bible....:hmm:

He said one cannot serve both God and money. There's no such thing as "people's money". Everything we have is a temporary loan from God, and he expects us to serve our fellow man.

Jesus told the rich young man to first give away his fortune to the poor, and only then to come and follow him.



Wow, really? You mean they had card-carrying Republicans back then? :hmm:

I didn't say Republicans, I said conservatives.

Fenris
Jun 11th 2008, 08:28 PM
He said one cannot serve both God and money. There's no such thing as "people's money". Everything we have is a temporary loan from God, and he expects us to serve our fellow man.That's right. That is my individual responsibility. It's not up to the government to take my money by force and decide what's best for people.


Jesus told the rich young man to first give away his fortune to the poor, and only then to come and follow him.Give away. Not 'allow to be taken by self-righteous leaders who claim to know what's best'.





I didn't say Republicans, I said conservatives.

All conservatives are not equal.

A conservative living in a dictatorship who wants the government to retain power over the people is bad. A conservative in a democracy who wants to keep the government from gaining power over the people is good.

Get it?

Free Indeed
Jun 11th 2008, 08:41 PM
That's right. That is my individual responsibility. It's not up to the government to take my money by force and decide what's best for people.
Give away. Not 'allow to be taken by self-righteous leaders who claim to know what's best'.

The fact of the matter is that we live in a society, and have duties and responsibilities to each other. Those of us who are doing well have even more responsibilities to others because it is by living in this type of society that we ourselves have benefitted.

If we don't like it, we're always welcome to move somewhere else.





A conservative living in a dictatorship who wants the government to retain power over the people is bad. A conservative in a democracy who wants to keep the government from gaining power over the people is good.

Get it?

Bush has expanded government, inflating it to a size unprecedented and never before seen in the United States. Get it?

Fenris
Jun 11th 2008, 08:47 PM
The fact of the matter is that we live in a society, and have duties and responsibilities to each other. Those of us who are doing well have even more responsibilities to others because it is by living in this type of society that we ourselves have benefitted.

If we don't like it, we're always welcome to move somewhere else.Again, that is an individual responsibility. It's no good deed to spend someone else's money.





Bush has expanded government, inflating it to a size unprecedented and never before seen in the United States. Get it?And Obama is threatening to raise taxes and grow government even more. Somehow that's ok with you...

EarlyCall
Jun 11th 2008, 10:27 PM
This is a red herring. Neither Jesus nor the Bible ever said anything about abortion. However, we *do* know that the Republicans support policies that are the *exact opposite* of what Jesus taught in the Bible.

I'm afraid you don't know your bible very well. As for republican policies, I'm afraid you have bought into the liberal lies.

But enough of your one line statements and claims with nothing to support them. Give me a policy of the republicans that is contrary to Jesus and what He taught. Unlike you, I will directly respond instead of evading.

As for the bible not speaking to abortion, God said that if a man killed the baby in the womb... Oh, you didn't know that one? God also poured out His wrath upon peoples that sacrificed their babies and children in the fire. Is it your contention that abortion doesn't take the life of a baby?

You need to know God and His word much better before attempting to make such claims. But thank you for the response because it does give me more insight as to why you have no spiritual issue voting for obama.

EarlyCall
Jun 11th 2008, 10:53 PM
Just to interject this. Once upon a time, a man wasn't asked what sin was. In the public arena, one kept his beliefs a bit more private. Like a woman's age, one didn't ask. Until now. Bush saying his favorite philosopher was Jesus Christ opened the door, in a way. Now candidates are grilled on their faith and then grilled again if they aren't comfortable with the question, or, God forbid, come up with an answer the questioner disagrees with. Or the questioner's audience.

There is no religious test for elected office. Yet some persist in fabricating one. We should be electing the best man or woman for the job, not looking for a spiritual leader in office. A good man or woman, sure. But not a spiritual guide or mentor or teacher or preacher. Not to worry. We are a very long way from electing a Hindu or atheist or whatever. And if we did, so what? If they upheld the Constitution and the laws of the land, isn't that what we want?

Food for thought.

Pat


Wow. Excuse for me for fabricating. Nice try at diversion and attempting to put on the defense. Not buying it.

It is no religious test; it is a moral test. And obama flunked.

Our constitution doesn't trump God. You might consider that food for thought.

EarlyCall
Jun 11th 2008, 11:01 PM
sxoiniđon diminutive of schoinos (a rush or flag-plant, of uncertain derivation)Transliterated WordPhonetic Spelling Schoinion skhoy-nee'-on http://www.studylight.org/images/audio.gif (http://www.studylight.org/cgi-bin/Lexicon.pl?id=4979g.rm) Parts of SpeechTDNT Noun Neuter None Definition


a cord or rope made of rushes
a rope

Barnes' Notes on the New Testament:
Verse 15. A scourge. A whip.
Of small cords. This whip was made as an emblem of authority, and also for the purpose of driving from the temple the cattle which had been brought there for sale. There is no evidence that he used any violence to the men engaged in that unhallowed traffic. The original word implies that these cords were made of twisted rushes or reeds-- probably the ancient material for making ropes.

Adam Clarke Commentary:
St. John alone mentions the scourge of rushes, and the casting out of the sheep and oxen. Besides, there is a considerable difference in our Lord's manner of doing it: in the cleansing mentioned by the three evangelists, he assumes a vast deal of authority, and speaks more pointedly concerning himself, than he appears to do in this cleansing mentioned by St. John

Hope this helps.

Pat



Want to bet that 90% of the libs in congress would call it violence if our military used it on the muslims in Gitmo?

EarlyCall
Jun 12th 2008, 12:22 AM
He said one cannot serve both God and money. There's no such thing as "people's money". Everything we have is a temporary loan from God, and he expects us to serve our fellow man.

Jesus told the rich young man to first give away his fortune to the poor, and only then to come and follow him.




I didn't say Republicans, I said conservatives.

Yes, because the rich young man had a problem: he valued money over Christ. Did Jesus say that to everyone? And yet your idea of what government should do concerning all of us - that's the point right there - all of us.

Further, when God dealt with Ananias and Saphira, it was not over the money but the lying. Peter said the money was theirs to do with as they pleased when they sold the land.

The point here is that nowhere does God didn't give even Peter and the church, ever, the right to take form some to give to others. So back up what you say with God's word instead of merely claiming it is so.

You need to know your bible better than you do if you are going to use it to support liberal positions.

And yet here you are, simply because you think socialism is a good idea, proclaiming it to be in God's word. It is not.

Be it a government or an individual, stealing is wrong in God's eyes. That really isn't debatable. And forcibly taking from one to give to another is not an act of charity but an act of stealing.

But hey, you are rich when compared to most in this world. How much more did you send the government above and beyond your required taxes last year? Yea, that's what I thought. Us conservatives call that what it is: hypocrisy.

Libre
Jun 12th 2008, 02:26 AM
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep

to gain what he cannot lose." Jim Elliot


In other words, when we give to the disadvantaged, whether by gifts or by tax supported programs (and let's face it, no number of churches can provide for these folks) then it is not stealing. Either way, the will of God is carried out.

Pat

PS. I live on less than $600 social security because I stayed home with my kids, and after things fell apart in the money department, this is my pittance. I have Medicare/Medicaid, but no dental coverage. Right now my face is swollen and I'm on antibiotics for an infection around the root of a tooth that needs to have the root canal redone. I pay no taxes. Still waiting for my stimulus check, which isn't enough to do anything with but have the tooth pulled.

So keep your comments appropriate - you don't know the circumstances of someone's life. I know you weren't speaking to me, but still... BTW, before I became old and destitute, I had a good living. It can indeed happen to anyone.

P

EarlyCall
Jun 12th 2008, 10:31 AM
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep

to gain what he cannot lose." Jim Elliot


In other words, when we give to the disadvantaged, whether by gifts or by tax supported programs (and let's face it, no number of churches can provide for these folks) then it is not stealing. Either way, the will of God is carried out.

Pat

PS. I live on less than $600 social security because I stayed home with my kids, and after things fell apart in the money department, this is my pittance. I have Medicare/Medicaid, but no dental coverage. Right now my face is swollen and I'm on antibiotics for an infection around the root of a tooth that needs to have the root canal redone. I pay no taxes. Still waiting for my stimulus check, which isn't enough to do anything with but have the tooth pulled.

So keep your comments appropriate - you don't know the circumstances of someone's life. I know you weren't speaking to me, but still... BTW, before I became old and destitute, I had a good living. It can indeed happen to anyone.

P

I agree we should keep our comments appropriate. Take note that my comments are most appropriate. What do you know of my life and life experiences? Do you know if I speak from experience? Or do you assume I do not?

Don't pretend to tell me the government taking my money by force to help others in need is not stealing. Support your position please by God's word.

First, we know God said stealing is wrong, it is sin.

What I'd like from you is the following:

Defend your position that it isn't stealing. Refrain however from defending that position by telling me how it is a good thing to help others. How charity is a godly thing. Please refrain from telling me there are hurting and needy people.

We are not debating here whether charity is good and whether there are hurting and needy people. That is not the real issue here. The real issue is whether government has the right to take from some to give to others.

Peter nor the church nor Paul nor the others were given authority to take form some to give from others except by those that gave did so because they chose to do so.

If you really know your bible well enough, if you really know God well enough, you would only be able to agree with this. It is throughout the NT. Paul collected money but always asked for it; never demanded it. Peter, as I said, said the money was theirs to do with as they pleased.

So defend your position, if you think you can by God's word. I'm not interested for the moment in your opinion. I want it from God's word. I've clearly shown there is nothing in the NT that gives anyone the right to forcibly take from another to give to someone else.

Oh, and please refrain from telling me Jesus said to give to Caesar what was his... too vague to be an argument for taxing us for the purpose of giving our money to someone else.

Does it make sense? If after we've worked through this, if then you want to discuss whether it is good to help others, whether it is right to help others and how it can be done, we can do so.

Oh, and then we could also discuss why the government is giving you any money at all because you see, you are quite rich compared to many in the world, and obama wants to give 845 billion of our money to other people in the world - in addition to what we already give. Now I could make the argument that you have too much because others have less. Therefore you must give more. If you have none to give, then you must take less from the government than you now do.

I say that based on the very principle you yourself give: that those that have should give to those that do not or to those that have less or to those that have need. That is marxism by the way. It doesn't work, never did and never will. But the principle you contend for I can use against you. I can deem you have less need than someone else, so I take from you and give to them.

That is the method you propose.

Regardless, let's go ahead and work through this logically and with reasoning. Please do be specific and address all points. I'll try to do the same.

Libre
Jun 12th 2008, 03:07 PM
:B

It's a marvel that one country has such opposite factions and survives. You have not convinced me. Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society. This is a quote from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., and is inscribed on the Internal Revenue Service building in D.C. We are the government and we have taxation with representation, as cumbersome as it is.

The common good extends beyond good highways and federal deposit insurance and the military. It is supposed to extend to all, and, yes, even the playing field. It's an extension, if you will, of the spirit of the early church, where none had any want. There aren't enough churches to do this for all their members, let alone those outside the "walls".

P

redeemedbyhim
Jun 12th 2008, 04:22 PM
:B

It's a marvel that one country has such opposite factions and survives. You have not convinced me. Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society. This is a quote from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., and is inscribed on the Internal Revenue Service building in D.C. We are the government and we have taxation with representation, as cumbersome as it is.

The common good extends beyond good highways and federal deposit insurance and the military. It is supposed to extend to all, and, yes, even the playing field. It's an extension, if you will, of the spirit of the early church, where none had any want. There aren't enough churches to do this for all their members, let alone those outside the "walls".

P

And yet there is not a single scripture to back up your claims.
Relying on the words of mere men who have not written by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, (the Bible) may be where you are encountering your errors.

God says He desires a cheeful giver, one who gives as "THEY" see fit, not one who is forced.
I find it odd that you would not take away the "choice" of a mother to abort her own child, but you would force the "choice" of giving one's money to another.
That's a huge double standard that is worthy of addressing.

EarlyCall
Jun 12th 2008, 04:46 PM
:B

It's a marvel that one country has such opposite factions and survives. You have not convinced me. Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society. This is a quote from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., and is inscribed on the Internal Revenue Service building in D.C. We are the government and we have taxation with representation, as cumbersome as it is.

The common good extends beyond good highways and federal deposit insurance and the military. It is supposed to extend to all, and, yes, even the playing field. It's an extension, if you will, of the spirit of the early church, where none had any want. There aren't enough churches to do this for all their members, let alone those outside the "walls".

Excuse me, but taking my money by force is no extension of Christ or His church. But you are a marxist.

P

I haven't convinced you? Did you think I thought I would convince you? Oh please. What do you take me for? I'm merely exposing the fallacy of your position and the weakness by which you try to defend it.

My goal was never to convince you personally but to allow you yourself to display your own inability to defend your position.

This you have done.

When challenged, the best you can manage is more opinion. How nice. You have an opinion. I gave evidence from God's word to counter your argument the government has a right to take my money to help others in need. You gave no evidence to the contrary. You respond with more opinion. You claiming it is an extension of the church is again - your say so. I don't see God saying that.

Taxes are required for a civilized society? We are not debating taxes. We are talking about a governments right to take from some to give to others. And taxes do not make a society civilized. That has to come from deeper than one's pockets.

Further, you will not find that right in the constitution either. Again, we are not talking about taxes.

Does it matter to you that it isn't in the constitution? This business of taking care of people with needs? No, as a marxist it wouldn't matter to you. And please, you are a marxist. You are practially quoting karl marx.

So, neither God nor His word nor the constitution support your position and yet you claim to be right. That's sweet.

One final thing. The length of your depenedncy on the government will determine the time of your being needy.

Libre
Jun 12th 2008, 07:18 PM
:rofl::rofl::rofl:

Sorry, but liberals aren't Marxists. Pulleeze, give me a break and some credit for first, being a child of the King, and second for having brains.

There are plenty of scriptures and scriptural principles that say to care for the widow and the stranger and so on. Probably more than any other topic other than greediness and idolatry.

And I was wrong. This board is pretty much like all the others when it comes to sensitive topics and expressing different view points. I shouldn't be surprised. We are all human. Sigh..

Pat

Free Indeed
Jun 12th 2008, 07:27 PM
God says He desires a cheeful giver, one who gives as "THEY" see fit, not one who is forced.

Sorry, but that doesn't hold up. As libre said, there is a price to pay to live in a society. It's like that in all advanced western countries: indeed, Americans pay far less taxes than any other advanced western nation.

Brother Mark
Jun 12th 2008, 07:30 PM
Jesus said render unto Caesar's that which is Caesar's. Whatever taxes government sets, it has the right to do so.

redeemedbyhim
Jun 12th 2008, 11:16 PM
Sorry, but that doesn't hold up. As libre said, there is a price to pay to live in a society. It's like that in all advanced western countries: indeed, Americans pay far less taxes than any other advanced western nation.

Yes, there is a price to pay, my taxes should pay for the protection of our people, good roads, schools and all things in keeping with the constitution. The other "advanced western nations" do not live under the U.S. constitution.

No where in the Bible does it say my taxes should pay for someone else's food, health care, etc., in fact, the Bible says a man who will not work is not worthy to eat and a man who will no provide for his family is worse than an infidel.

And no where in the constitution does it say I'm to pay for the miard of pork and waste that goes on in government.

If I give from a true heart that pleases God I will be giving to Him, giving to the least of these from a desire to be obedient and love and not forced by my government.
In fact the excess in taxes for these entitlment programs gives me less to give where I feel God wants me to, there's only so much money in my budget to go around.

redeemedbyhim
Jun 12th 2008, 11:18 PM
:rofl::rofl::rofl:

Sorry, but liberals aren't Marxists. Pulleeze, give me a break and some credit for first, being a child of the King, and second for having brains.

There are plenty of scriptures and scriptural principles that say to care for the widow and the stranger and so on. Probably more than any other topic other than greediness and idolatry.

And I was wrong. This board is pretty much like all the others when it comes to sensitive topics and expressing different view points. I shouldn't be surprised. We are all human. Sigh..

Pat

After you stop laughing, could you address this: I find it odd that you would not take away the "choice" of a mother to abort her own child, but you would force the "choice" of giving one's money to another.
That's a huge double standard that is worthy of addressing.

Brother Mark
Jun 12th 2008, 11:26 PM
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep

to gain what he cannot lose." Jim Elliot


In other words, when we give to the disadvantaged, whether by gifts or by tax supported programs (and let's face it, no number of churches can provide for these folks) then it is not stealing. Either way, the will of God is carried out.

Yep. And Jesus even said render unto Caesar's that which is Caesar's. Government can tax as much as it wants to.



PS. I live on less than $600 social security because I stayed home with my kids, and after things fell apart in the money department, this is my pittance. I have Medicare/Medicaid, but no dental coverage. Right now my face is swollen and I'm on antibiotics for an infection around the root of a tooth that needs to have the root canal redone. I pay no taxes. Still waiting for my stimulus check, which isn't enough to do anything with but have the tooth pulled.

There are plans available for those that are dual eligible (i.e. on both medicare and medicaid) that do provide dental coverage. And the cost is the same or less than the government currently provides. I just want to make sure people know that there are programs out there that provide for those in your shoes. They're available even if people don't always know about them.


So keep your comments appropriate - you don't know the circumstances of someone's life. I know you weren't speaking to me, but still... BTW, before I became old and destitute, I had a good living. It can indeed happen to anyone.

P[/quote]

Brother Mark
Jun 12th 2008, 11:28 PM
After you stop laughing, could you address this: I find it odd that you would not take away the "choice" of a mother to abort her own child, but you would force the "choice" of giving one's money to another.
That's a huge double standard that is worthy of addressing.

Indeed it is! That is a big double standard indeed.

Libre
Jun 12th 2008, 11:29 PM
Can't help myself. You are comparing apples and oranges, but you are calling the oranges limes. It's just funny. Or it's the Novocaine wearing off....

Pat

"If we couldn't laugh we'd just go insane". Jimmy Buffet
:bounce:

Brother Mark
Jun 12th 2008, 11:49 PM
Can't help myself. You are comparing apples and oranges, but you are calling the oranges limes. It's just funny. Or it's the Novocaine wearing off....

Pat

"If we couldn't laugh we'd just go insane". Jimmy Buffet
:bounce:

Do you support legalized abortion? If so, why?

Libre
Jun 13th 2008, 12:35 AM
I don't impose my religious understanding on the law of the land. At this point it's unlikely that there will be a change in Roe v. Wade because of 50 yrs of precedential weight. This is why Justice Thomas did not rule against R v W.

The view of the law is that nobody has the right to take an unborn's life if the mother does not consent.

Morally, I agree with the self-awareness guide line, which usually translates as "quickening". As well, I take the breath of life/living soul position. Not the moment of conception position.

One main argument for reproductive rights is that forced pregnancy, or forced continuation of one, is immoral and an abridgment of the woman's rights. It has terrible potential. This sort of thing was done in Nazi camps, which the extreme dehumanizing of women.

Further, I do not believe we can compel anyone to follow our morality. We, who have the Holy Spirit have the power to live the Christian life. Those who don't have that power in their lives cannot do it. We can legislate against those who harm others, but we should draw the line at consenting adults, and what a woman decides with her doctor about a pregnancy. This even trumps the father's right, in many people's opinion, mine included.

You will not agree with these things. But you can see they are well thought out and constitute a coherent viewpoint. It is not a conservative position today, but many of the points are traditionally founded.

Pat

Fenris
Jun 13th 2008, 12:51 AM
Sorry, but that doesn't hold up. As libre said, there is a price to pay to live in a society. It's like that in all advanced western countries: indeed, Americans pay far less taxes than any other advanced western nation.And our economy is much stronger than any other Western nation. Could there possibly be a connection? :hmm:

Brother Mark
Jun 13th 2008, 01:02 AM
I don't impose my religious understanding on the law of the land. At this point it's unlikely that there will be a change in Roe v. Wade because of 50 yrs of precedential weight. This is why Justice Thomas did not rule against R v W.

So you wouldn't impose your religious view that it is wrong to murder 2 year olds?


The view of the law is that nobody has the right to take an unborn's life if the mother does not consent. So it's OK if the mother wants to kill a 2 year old?


Morally, I agree with the self-awareness guide line, which usually translates as "quickening". As well, I take the breath of life/living soul position. Not the moment of conception position.How do you explain away the verses in scripture concerning conception? But I must say, this is a much better approach than those that just deny life exist at all. So before one takes a breath, what life is it?


One main argument for reproductive rights is that forced pregnancy, or forced continuation of one, is immoral and an abridgment of the woman's rights. It has terrible potential. This sort of thing was done in Nazi camps, which the extreme dehumanizing of women.Hmmm. Kind of like forcing a parent to care for a 2 year old? Of course, aborting the baby is far more dangerous to the baby than carrying the baby to term is for the woman. As far as Nazi's go, they killed folks. I think they line up better with the abortionist position. ;) But let's be fair. To compare those that wish to force a woman to carry her pregnancy to full term to Nazis is kind of out there. None of these folks are advocating a woman getting raped or experimented with. Just that she show the same concern for her unborn child as she should her child that is born.



Further, I do not believe we can compel anyone to follow our morality. We, who have the Holy Spirit have the power to live the Christian life. Those who don't have that power in their lives cannot do it. We can legislate against those who harm others, but we should draw the line at consenting adults, and what a woman decides with her doctor about a pregnancy. This even trumps the father's right, in many people's opinion, mine included.This is simply a cop out. Society has long forced morality on it's people. Liberals do this with the concept of taxes for the poor. You have already justified that moral position. So I have a hard time believing you don't compel someone to follow your moral code.


You will not agree with these things. But you can see they are well thought out and constitute a coherent viewpoint. It is not a conservative position today, but many of the points are traditionally founded.

PatSome are well thought out. But the one about moral laws isn't. You have pushed moral agency for taxes in this board already. ;)

Libre
Jun 13th 2008, 01:16 AM
Dude, I said unborn, not 2 year olds.

I'm not pushing any morality. Taxes are more to do with the cost of civilization. But there is a moral element, which comes from our federal papers, that equal rights prevail. The legals system, presumably based on biblical principles, has ruled about when and where a mother's right overrides the unborn's rights, if any.

Pat

Libre
Jun 13th 2008, 01:19 AM
Possible exception clause in the case of the terrible twos......

Pat:bounce:

redeemedbyhim
Jun 13th 2008, 01:24 AM
I don't impose my religious understanding on the law of the land. At this point it's unlikely that there will be a change in Roe v. Wade because of 50 yrs of precedential weight. This is why Justice Thomas did not rule against R v W.

The view of the law is that nobody has the right to take an unborn's life if the mother does not consent.

Morally, I agree with the self-awareness guide line, which usually translates as "quickening". As well, I take the breath of life/living soul position. Not the moment of conception position.

One main argument for reproductive rights is that forced pregnancy, or forced continuation of one, is immoral and an abridgment of the woman's rights. It has terrible potential. This sort of thing was done in Nazi camps, which the extreme dehumanizing of women.

Further, I do not believe we can compel anyone to follow our morality. We, who have the Holy Spirit have the power to live the Christian life. Those who don't have that power in their lives cannot do it. We can legislate against those who harm others, but we should draw the line at consenting adults, and what a woman decides with her doctor about a pregnancy. This even trumps the father's right, in many people's opinion, mine included.

You will not agree with these things. But you can see they are well thought out and constitute a coherent viewpoint. It is not a conservative position today, but many of the points are traditionally founded.

Pat

There isn't much I can add to what Brother Mark has said in rebutal.
And I hope you will explain the double standard of forcing one's moral/religious views concerning giving monies but not forcing one's moral/religious views concerning the killing of child in the womb.

What "terrible potential" occured prior to RvW when women for centuries faced the consequenses of their actions and proceeded with their pregnancies?
Please don't fall back on the "coat hanger" argument, women have been self aborting for centuries just like people have been killing born people for centuries. What one does that goes against God's principles is no excuse to make it legal.

Women are not superior to men nor are they superior to God's laws. A women has a right to abstain or use non-abortifacient birth control to keep from getting pregnant in agreement with her husband. But, if she consents to sex, she has all ready, in effect, consenting to becoming pregnant since that is the natural, God planned outcome of sex.

Libre
Jun 13th 2008, 02:05 AM
:rolleyes:

My mother used to say, It takes all kinds to make the world go 'round.

And it takes both conservatives and liberals to keep the ship of state on an even keel.

There is no rebuttal needed, for I am not debating. Merely stating the liberal position and rational. Yes, rational. There is rational on both sides of this. Liberals accept one line of reasoning, and conservatives the another.

I used to be a very conservative Christian, believing what my conservative pastors said. Then I began to question some things. I am not a totally liberal Christian now, and don't see that I would ever be. Most liberal theologians throw out half of the Bible. I do not throw out any of the Bible, but only understand it differently than fundamentalists.

Now, there are fundamentals to the gospel, and I defend them at all times. I am saved and know so. It's been 33 years, and I am closer to Jesus now than ever. He is the air I breath, my living bread. Illustrating there is room for all at the table, eh?

But how I walk the walk is different than it used to be. Much more in keeping with how I view it should be, and as I understand the general tenor of scripture.

Peace,
Pat

Ashley274
Jun 13th 2008, 04:54 AM
Ferris....everyone..I do not like Obama he creeps me out and is a very dangerous man.

Brother Mark
Jun 13th 2008, 01:02 PM
Dude, I said unborn, not 2 year olds.

I'm not pushing any morality. Taxes are more to do with the cost of civilization. But there is a moral element, which comes from our federal papers, that equal rights prevail. The legals system, presumably based on biblical principles, has ruled about when and where a mother's right overrides the unborn's rights, if any.

Pat

All law is based in morality. Killing 2 years olds is immoral right? You support laws against immoral murder? What about laws against immoral rape? Or perhaps we could talk about the law against stealing...

As for taxes and civilization, your wrote in another post about redistribution. That is strictly a moral thing. Civilizations can be run with national defense, law, trade, and infrastructure. Many nations run fine without any help for the poor. But liberals are often about helping the poor which is purely a moral consideration not a civilization consideration. Almost all law is based in morality.

The legal system is partly based on biblical principles but not entirely as we see with gay marriage and abortion.

But again, what do you do with the scriptures that suggest life begins at conception?

Or, what life is it a day before the baby is born? Is it the mothers life in that "fetus"? Is it just a thing? What's the difference in the life of the fetus the day before it is born and the day after?

Brother Mark
Jun 13th 2008, 01:05 PM
:rolleyes:

My mother used to say, It takes all kinds to make the world go 'round.

And it takes both conservatives and liberals to keep the ship of state on an even keel.

There is no rebuttal needed, for I am not debating. Merely stating the liberal position and rational. Yes, rational. There is rational on both sides of this. Liberals accept one line of reasoning, and conservatives the another.

This is partly true. But I still submit you are using morals on one side and not the other.


I used to be a very conservative Christian, believing what my conservative pastors said. Then I began to question some things. I am not a totally liberal Christian now, and don't see that I would ever be. Most liberal theologians throw out half of the Bible. I do not throw out any of the Bible, but only understand it differently than fundamentalists.

Now, there are fundamentals to the gospel, and I defend them at all times. I am saved and know so. It's been 33 years, and I am closer to Jesus now than ever. He is the air I breath, my living bread. Illustrating there is room for all at the table, eh?

But how I walk the walk is different than it used to be. Much more in keeping with how I view it should be, and as I understand the general tenor of scripture.

Peace,
Pat


Want to give some details? Many of my friends think I am liberal too. The more I saw the love of Christ the more I wanted to help the poor and the more I saw the compassion of God the more compassionate I wanted to become. But anyway, care to flesh out your statements and what that means politically?

daughter
Jun 13th 2008, 01:20 PM
Would that not lead us to a new thread? We're no longer talking about Obama and his unscriptural definition of sin.

redeemedbyhim
Jun 13th 2008, 01:44 PM
:rolleyes:

My mother used to say, It takes all kinds to make the world go 'round.

And it takes both conservatives and liberals to keep the ship of state on an even keel.

There is no rebuttal needed, for I am not debating. Merely stating the liberal position and rational. Yes, rational. There is rational on both sides of this. Liberals accept one line of reasoning, and conservatives the another.

I used to be a very conservative Christian, believing what my conservative pastors said. Then I began to question some things. I am not a totally liberal Christian now, and don't see that I would ever be. Most liberal theologians throw out half of the Bible. I do not throw out any of the Bible, but only understand it differently than fundamentalists.

Now, there are fundamentals to the gospel, and I defend them at all times. I am saved and know so. It's been 33 years, and I am closer to Jesus now than ever. He is the air I breath, my living bread. Illustrating there is room for all at the table, eh?

But how I walk the walk is different than it used to be. Much more in keeping with how I view it should be, and as I understand the general tenor of scripture.

Peace,
Pat

You seem to quote everyone but God's Word, I'm just wondering why? Shouldn't it be God's Word that forms our beliefs?
You've said much, but nothing from the Word that supports your defense of abortion on demand.
There's plenty of room at the table, no doubt!
But, there is a list of those who will not be at the table of the marriage supper of the Lamb, that should be considered too, don't you think?
I don't know how we will stand before God and explain away the over 50 million dead babies, (so far). If you know how I wish you would explain it, I'd like to understand.

Libre
Jun 13th 2008, 02:57 PM
God's word should form our values, true. But in the political arena, in a pluralistic society, one cannot represent all by only pleasing some. The job of the politician is to represent. If he or she cannot in good conscience do this, then he or she should change jobs. That is doing what your hand finds as unto the Lord. Being true to your conscience in Him.

As for Obama specifically, only he can speak to his values and how he loves and serves God. He has stated, and his past shows, that he is a Christian. Which does not necessarily mean he is born again, but does mean that he is using God's word to guide his life. It does not mean that how he sees the meaning and application of God's word will agree with yours or mine. It does mean that we have to take him at his word, as we cannot judge a heart.

We don't have to stand before God and explain what others do. We stand before God, if we are among the righteous in Christ, and our works of the flesh will be burnt up. What we truly did for Him will remain. That may be our treasure in heaven that Jesus talked about.

But don't judge another on what he is at liberty about. Just as the one who is at liberty about a certain thing must not cause a brother to stumble because of that liberty. One who has a strong conscience in such matters, as Paul says, must follow his conscience before God, for God is only pleased by faith. In Paul's terms, a strong conscience is one that considers many things as sinful or forbidden. He was talking of eating meat sacrificed to idols, but the principle has broader application, as here.

So, if I can allow abortion to be legal and support the woman's decision and love that woman anyway, as Christ would have me do, that is in faith that the letter of the law kills. The spirit of the law is to love your neighbor. I see my neighbor as the women, not the unborn child. But I do not compel you to see it this way. That would be causing to stumble. Only God can show someone a thing is allowed, as He did in Peter's vision.

We can discuss it, for not only is that allowed in our system, but it is the only way to present an idea to others. Or defend one.

So, Obama, and most liberals, see things in broad principles, not bits and portions of scripture quoted out of context. Because if we honor one part of the Mosaic law, we must honor all. We must begin to stone rebellious children, for instance. And not wear mixed fabrics. And so on. That is ridiculous, of course, as a political position.

Pat

Brother Mark
Jun 13th 2008, 03:24 PM
God's word should form our values, true. But in the political arena, in a pluralistic society, one cannot represent all by only pleasing some. The job of the politician is to represent. If he or she cannot in good conscience do this, then he or she should change jobs. That is doing what your hand finds as unto the Lord. Being true to your conscience in Him.

I would say the job of the politician is to lead. We are not to just be true to our conscience, but to line our conscience up with Him. That's what repentance means. Representing people may be a basis for democracy, but there is simply no way one can represent all folks. It has never worked that way and never will.


As for Obama specifically, only he can speak to his values and how he loves and serves God. He has stated, and his past shows, that he is a Christian. Which does not necessarily mean he is born again, but does mean that he is using God's word to guide his life. It does not mean that how he sees the meaning and application of God's word will agree with yours or mine. It does mean that we have to take him at his word, as we cannot judge a heart.Actually, it doesn't mean we take him at is word. But we can't know his heart until he speaks. For from the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. His words will give him away. But we really aren't to trust folks until they prove trustworthy. That's what Jesus taught us at the end of John 2.


We don't have to stand before God and explain what others do. We stand before God, if we are among the righteous in Christ, and our works of the flesh will be burnt up. What we truly did for Him will remain. That may be our treasure in heaven that Jesus talked about.AMEN!


But don't judge another on what he is at liberty about. Just as the one who is at liberty about a certain thing must not cause a brother to stumble because of that liberty. One who has a strong conscience in such matters, as Paul says, must follow his conscience before God, for God is only pleased by faith. In Paul's terms, a strong conscience is one that considers many things as sinful or forbidden. He was talking of eating meat sacrificed to idols, but the principle has broader application, as here.Well, it is the stronger believer that has freedom not the other way around. The stronger believer feels he has freedom to eat whereas the weaker brother does not. So we don't want the weaker brother to stumble at because of another's freedom. Yet, where scripture is clear, it is no longer an object of conscience. For instance, is it OK to steal or murder even if we think we are doing right? No. It's still sin even if our conscience disagrees.


So, if I can allow abortion to be legal and support the woman's decision and love that woman anyway, as Christ would have me do, that is in faith that the letter of the law kills. The spirit of the law is to love your neighbor. I see my neighbor as the women, not the unborn child. But I do not compel you to see it this way. That would be causing to stumble. Only God can show someone a thing is allowed, as He did in Peter's vision.Oh, I love the woman dearly that has an abortion. But to allow her to harm her child is not something that is loving. That's enabling. I see my neighbor as both the woman and the unborn child.

So what about the scriptures that speak of life in the womb? And what of science that shows the DNA of the unborn to be different than the DNA of the mother? The fetus is clearly not just an appendage, yet it is living.


We can discuss it, for not only is that allowed in our system, but it is the only way to present an idea to others. Or defend one.

So, Obama, and most liberals, see things in broad principles, not bits and portions of scripture quoted out of context. Because if we honor one part of the Mosaic law, we must honor all. We must begin to stone rebellious children, for instance. And not wear mixed fabrics. And so on. That is ridiculous, of course, as a political position.

Pat

I think Obama and liberals don't see much scripture at all as concerning abortion and gay marriage, etc. We can discuss the Mosaic law if you wish and what it means to honor the spirit of the law instead of the letter. That actually gets discussed quite a bit. But to say Liberals see the whole and don't take small scriptures out of context is interesting. I see where they simply ignore scripture on many things, as do conservatives.

Libre
Jun 13th 2008, 04:27 PM
How's that day job coming? I'm retired and don't have a life, lol. So can reply to my email often......

The politician leads, but he leads in regard to what those who elect him want him to represent. The politician's job is not to follow Mosaic law or to repent. Repentance involves one's relationship with God.

God knows the heart. Prov 15:3 KJV.

Acts 15:8 So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, 9 and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

1 John 3:20-22 For if our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and knows all things. 21 Beloved, if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence toward God. 22 And whatever we ask we receive from Him, because we keep His commandments and do those things that are pleasing in His sight.

Mark 12:30 And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.' This is the first commandment. 31 And the second, like it, is this: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these."Liberals do not concern themselves much with the Mosaic law, but follow the overriding law of love, which is called the law of Christ.

You may say it's not loving the person if we don't require they follow the scriptural law. I say it is not loving the person to require what we can't do ourselves. We are, as Jesus said, blind guides if we do so. We put burdens on them that we can't carry ourselves.

What we do is keep evil persons from harming others. And punish them when they do harm.

Which takes us to the gay thing and abortion, which I have already commented on. We have no business interfering between consenting adults unless they are abusing each other or committing assault and/or battery.

And we have no business telling a woman how to handle her pregnancy. If we require it to continue, it is compelling against the will, and is not moral under our concept of equal rights and the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness.

So, this should have been shorter, for you are one of those who answers line by line. What was I thinking?!?!? Oy vey!

Short answer, I think, is that liberals do not see prohibition against gay marriage or abortion in scripture, or prohibitions against such. We do not feel bound by Mosaic law, which was not for the Gentiles anyway. Read Paul's arguments against putting the yoke of the law on Gentiles. But that's another thread, isn't it?

Pat

EarlyCall
Jun 13th 2008, 04:29 PM
Dude, I said unborn, not 2 year olds.

I'm not pushing any morality. Taxes are more to do with the cost of civilization. But there is a moral element, which comes from our federal papers, that equal rights prevail. The legals system, presumably based on biblical principles, has ruled about when and where a mother's right overrides the unborn's rights, if any.

Pat

I've never met a non-suicidal woman yet that was for abortion that wasn't an absolute total and complete hypocrite.

When it comes to their mother aborting them, they would be against it. They are also glad she didn't. They also think she made the right choice.

Brother Mark
Jun 13th 2008, 04:34 PM
How's that day job coming? I'm retired and don't have a life, lol. So can reply to my email often......

Is that a rebuke? I am self employed.


The politician leads, but he leads in regard to what those who elect him want him to represent. The politician's job is not to follow Mosaic law or to repent. Repentance involves one's relationship with God.

All men should follow the law of God. It is all men's responsibility to keep the commandments of God regardless of position.


God knows the heart. Prov 15:3 KJV.

Yes he does. But not sure your point.


You may say it's not loving the person if we don't require they follow the scriptural law. I say it is not loving the person to require what we can't do ourselves. We are, as Jesus said, blind guides if we do so. We put burdens on them that we can't carry ourselves.

Oh, I am not saying we should require the lost to live to our standards. But lets be clear here. You are quite willing to require others to pay higher taxes in order to help the poor. That is a moral stance. You are willing to force them to do one thing that helps another but not keep them from hurting the unborn?


What we do is keep evil persons from harming others. And punish them when they do harm.

I agree. Especially for those least able to protect themselves. But let's not forget your stance on forcing taxes on those that do not wish to pay them.


Which takes us to the gay thing and abortion, which I have already commented on. We have no business interfering between consenting adults unless they are abusing each other or committing assault and/or battery.

Tell that to Lot. ;) All kidding aside. It is one thing for government to ignore what folks do. It is another thing entirely for government to give it's endorsement to it. Democrats give hearty approval to it and that is what God preaches against in Romans 1.


And we have no business telling a woman how to handle her pregnancy. If we require it to continue, it is compelling against the will, and is not moral under our concept of equal rights and the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness.

So, if her 2 year old interferes with her right to pursuit of life, liberty and happiness, she can kill it? As I see it, the baby has just as much a right as she does.

[qoute]Short answer, I think, is that liberals do not see prohibition against gay marriage or abortion in scripture, or prohibitions against such. We do not feel bound by Mosaic law, which was not for the Gentiles anyway. Read Paul's arguments against putting the yoke of the law on Gentiles. But that's another thread, isn't it?[/quote]

You want the verses? I can give you plenty. You keep referring to the Mosaic law. What do you mean by Mosaic law? Make sure you are prepared. There is much in scripture that is no Mosaic law. For instance, are you free from the command "Thou shalt not murder"?

You still haven't answered the question... what of the verses that speak to life beginning at conception?

Libre
Jun 13th 2008, 04:46 PM
I've never met a non-suicidal woman yet that was for abortion that wasn't an absolute total and complete hypocrite.

When it comes to their mother aborting them, they would be against it. They are also glad she didn't. They also think she made the right choice.I am non-suicidal. I support a woman's right to abortion. I do not personally think it is the best choice. I couldn't do it I don't think. But who knows what they would do given certain circumstances?

I do admit to thinking about it once. I was 42 and I had married a nut case - not father material and not a good provider. But I didn't do it. Am I glad? Well, of course. I love my son. How would I have felt later if I had aborted? Being a Christian, probably terrible. But I would also have forgiveness. The real tragedy is that women who don't know Jesus can really be tormented. Not all of course. All women who have abortions do not suffer long term consequences.

So, please don't accuse non-suicidal women of hypocrisy if they support abortion. There is no connection between sanity and support of a woman's rights, except that sane women in the main support it.

Pat

Libre
Jun 13th 2008, 04:50 PM
BrotherMark, I was poking a little fun at your timely and lengthy responses. I have many hours in the day to fill, and I'm saying it's difficult for me to find time and respond. :saint:

Pat

Brother Mark
Jun 13th 2008, 05:05 PM
I am non-suicidal. I support a woman's right to abortion. I do not personally think it is the best choice. I couldn't do it I don't think. But who knows what they would do given certain circumstances?

David murdered a man so I suppose could many other folks murder.


I do admit to thinking about it once. I was 42 and I had married a nut case - not father material and not a good provider. But I didn't do it. Am I glad? Well, of course. I love my son. How would I have felt later if I had aborted? Being a Christian, probably terrible. But I would also have forgiveness. The real tragedy is that women who don't know Jesus can really be tormented. Not all of course. All women who have abortions do not suffer long term consequences.

Think of it. Your son would not be here. He is a being and was before he was born. Nothing else would ever be used to make him what he is today.


So, please don't accuse non-suicidal women of hypocrisy if they support abortion. There is no connection between sanity and support of a woman's rights, except that sane women in the main support it.

Pat

Still wondering what you do with the verses that speak of life in the womb?

EarlyCall
Jun 13th 2008, 05:29 PM
I am non-suicidal. I support a woman's right to abortion. I do not personally think it is the best choice. I couldn't do it I don't think. But who knows what they would do given certain circumstances?

I do admit to thinking about it once. I was 42 and I had married a nut case - not father material and not a good provider. But I didn't do it. Am I glad? Well, of course. I love my son. How would I have felt later if I had aborted? Being a Christian, probably terrible. But I would also have forgiveness. The real tragedy is that women who don't know Jesus can really be tormented. Not all of course. All women who have abortions do not suffer long term consequences.

So, please don't accuse non-suicidal women of hypocrisy if they support abortion. There is no connection between sanity and support of a woman's rights, except that sane women in the main support it.

Pat


Yea, I think you missed the point about it being hypocritical. Abortion, in all cases is a self-sentered and selfish act as opposed to an act of selflessness. It is an act that considers oneself first and foremost and denies the unborn baby any consideration. It also denies the baby the very thing the mother is claiming for herself - a future.

None of those things invovled in an abortion are according to the nature and character of God as evidenced in His actions toward us - we got not what we deserved but what we did not deserve when God sent Christ to die for us.

I'm always amazed by the hypocrisy of the liberal stand when they claim to be the ones that care so much for others, particularly those in need, but then deny the needs of the unborn and care nothing for it. They speak of their own rights but deny the rights of the unborn.

To get around this of course they make all sorts of claims. One being it has no rights. Or as you claim, it isn't a living being until it takes that first breath. That is awfully convenient. Not for the baby of course.

Both claims are awfully convenient for the liberal, the liberal that supposedly cares so much for others. Yes, perhaps in words and when it is convenient.

Something is inherently wrong in this. I guess it just takes the wisdom of god to understand that. One can go a lifetime and never get it.

Libre
Jun 13th 2008, 06:21 PM
I get it, earlycall. But I will not put my values on someone else when it comes to this. It is personal. That is what divides liberal from conservative in many cases. But you see, liberals have a hard time with unjust wars and the killing of the innocents. We see that as worse than abortion.

As a Christian, what I allow is not always what I would do. But as a citizen under the laws of this country, and in a pluralistic society, I must allow for individual rights, as is guaranteed by our constitution, and as based on documents like the Declaration of Independence which is the basis of our law. Not the laws of the Bible. And I understand the judicial opinions that were given for cases like Roe v Wade. I also accept them and agree with the consenting ones over the dissenting ones.

So, we remain in our respective sides aboard the ship of state, keeping her from floundering. Too much left or right creates a circle. I used to have a canoe. More than any other craft, a canoe needs equal force applied against the water to steer straight. We are doing our part when we vote. The electorate has an uncanny way of course correction. Beautiful, isn't it? Even when it doesn't go our way.

Pat

Brother Mark
Jun 13th 2008, 06:29 PM
I get it, earlycall. But I will not put my values on someone else when it comes to this. It is personal. That is what divides liberal from conservative in many cases. But you see, liberals have a hard time with unjust wars and the killing of the innocents. We see that as worse than abortion.

Yet, the number of innocents killed in wars is way lower than that killed by mothers through abortion. Liberals indeed put their values on others! That is where I find them often in hypocrisy. They value giving to the poor and insist on me paying the taxes to do so. Again, I am not disagreeing with that value but liberals definitely put their value system on others in many, many ways.


As a Christian, what I allow is not always what I would do. But as a citizen under the laws of this country, and in a pluralistic society, I must allow for individual rights, as is guaranteed by our constitution, and as based on documents like the Declaration of Independence which is the basis of our law. Not the laws of the Bible. And I understand the judicial opinions that were given for cases like Roe v Wade. I also accept them and agree with the consenting ones over the dissenting ones. I almost agree with you. For instance, we should not always put scripture into the law of the land. However, murder is another thing isn't it?


So, we remain in our respective sides aboard the ship of state, keeping her from floundering. Too much left or right creates a circle. I used to have a canoe. More than any other craft, a canoe needs equal force applied against the water to steer straight. We are doing our part when we vote. The electorate has an uncanny way of course correction. Beautiful, isn't it? Even when it doesn't go our way.

Pat
So what do you do with scripture that says life begins at conception? As for your analogy, I agree only so far as we don't go outside of the law of God. Doesn't mean I would vote to go with someone else's idea of what God wants though and therein lies the rub.

Libre
Jun 13th 2008, 06:40 PM
The point is, on this thread, What do men running for office do with sin? Most follow our laws, leaving the finer points to lawyers and judges. That is all we require of them in office - to uphold the Constitution and defend our borders. With the element of representing those who they are supposed to represent, and who elected them. We are attacking liberals for failing to follow Mosaic laws, which we are calling Christian laws.

However, since there is no religious test for national office, this discussion is moot. Candidates are not required to agree with our values. If the majority of voters find a candidate's message and values agreeable, they vote for him or her. It's that simple. Next time, the tide may turn the other way. It's our system. Gotta love it.

Pat

Brother Mark
Jun 13th 2008, 06:56 PM
The point is, on this thread, What do men running for office do with sin? Most follow our laws, leaving the finer points to lawyers and judges. That is all we require of them in office - to uphold the Constitution and defend our borders. With the element of representing those who they are supposed to represent, and who elected them. We are attacking liberals for failing to follow Mosaic laws, which we are calling Christian laws.

The constitution says each is guaranteed the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Liberals will deny the unborn baby that right.


However, since there is no religious test for national office, this discussion is moot. Candidates are not required to agree with our values. If the majority of voters find a candidate's message and values agreeable, they vote for him or her. It's that simple. Next time, the tide may turn the other way. It's our system. Gotta love it.

Pat

There is no religious test. But it doesn't remove the hypocrisy that liberals use when they go to the values argument. Liberals are more guilty of imposing their values sense they do it through the court system instead of through the congress as the constitution intended.

No, I don't have to love that it's ok to murder babies. ;)

So what do you do with the verses that say life begins at conception? I notice you keep ignoring the question. Therefor, I will keep asking it.

Free Indeed
Jun 13th 2008, 07:06 PM
So what do you do with the verses that say life begins at conception? I notice you keep ignoring the question. Therefor, I will keep asking it.

Life begins before conception. Both the sperm and egg cells are alive before joining.

The question concerning ethics and abortion is when does a fertilized egg become a person? It seems that any line drawn is arbitrary.


But it doesn't remove the hypocrisy that liberals use when they go to the values argument. Liberals are more guilty of imposing their values sense they do it through the court system instead of through the congress as the constitution intended.

The court system ensures that the Constitution is being adhered to.

Brother Mark
Jun 13th 2008, 07:18 PM
Life begins before conception. Both the sperm and egg cells are alive before joining.

But sperm and egg are not separate life. They both have the DNA of the person of which they come. However, when sperm and egg come together, a different DNA pattern exist! New life has begun that is more than just a cell that is simply a part of another being. It is not a separate body all together.


The question concerning ethics and abortion is when does a fertilized egg become a person? It seems that any line drawn is arbitrary. That would be a worthy discussion. It is like asking when does a catapillar become a butterfly. But they are different. For the life that is within the catapillar doesn't become a different life when it becomes a butterfly. The body simply changes. The same with a fertalized egg. Interestingly enough, that same body continues to change throughout the life of the human being from conception, till death.


The court system ensures that the Constitution is being adhered to.

That is what conservatives would wish for! The constitution has changed and is viewed as a living document by liberals. Thus, they empower the judge to create his own laws as the constitution changes. That is what gets us things like gay marriage and abortion.

Libre
Jun 13th 2008, 07:19 PM
It still remains that if you don't want an abortion, don't have one. And it remains that the law says it's legal. It's not likely to change, based on the amount of time that has passed. There's a legal name for that.

So, let the unbelievers abort, and let the Christians sustain, and we will see who wins. More Christian babies should be a good thing.

It's either that or return to the dark ages of back room abortions. I remember those days. Not good. But we can't imposed that value on everyone. Won't happen.

Pat

Brother Mark
Jun 13th 2008, 07:23 PM
It still remains that if you don't want an abortion, don't have one. And it remains that the law says it's legal. It's not likely to change, based on the amount of time that has passed. There's a legal name for that.

One more judge and it will change. Just because the law says it's legal doesn't mean it's not murder.


So, let the unbelievers abort, and let the Christians sustain, and we will see who wins. More Christian babies should be a good thing.

Wow! That's the problem with many liberal positions. You know I once had a liberal try to convince me abortion was OK because more blacks had abortions? Now you want to tell me it's OK because unbelievers are killing unbelievers?


It's either that or return to the dark ages of back room abortions. I remember those days. Not good. But we can't imposed that value on everyone. Won't happen.

How bout this... return to the days when women loved their babies and had them. Just as murder is not done in broad daylight today, there are less murders because of it. The same with abortion. Why should my compassion be more for the murderer than the innocent baby?

So, what do you do with the verses that say life begins at conception? It is so easy for us to ignore scripture isn't it. ;)

Free Indeed
Jun 13th 2008, 07:31 PM
But sperm and egg are not separate life.

Yes, they're separate life until the moment of conception.


They both have the DNA of the person of which they come.

True. I have the DNA of my great-great granddad, but we're still separate beings.


It is like asking when does a catapillar become a butterfly. But they are different. For the life that is within the catapillar doesn't become a different life when it becomes a butterfly. The body simply changes.

I disagree that the two are analogous. The caterpillar is an independent living being with consciousness. His change into a butterfly does not alter his status as an independent being with at least a limited self-consciousness.

A better example would be: at what point does the thing in the egg become a caterpillar?


Interestingly enough, that same body continues to change throughout the life of the human being from conception, till death.

That's true, but doesn't answer the most important question: when does it become a person?




That is what conservatives would wish for! The constitution has changed and is viewed as a living document by liberals.

It's viewed as a living document by (I thought) everyone. It's the only reason it's lasted so long. If it weren't a living document, blacks, for example, would still be fractions of people. Were it not living, it could not be amended. And the framers amended it themselves upon ratification.

Brother Mark
Jun 13th 2008, 07:50 PM
Yes, they're separate life until the moment of conception.

Not in the same way and you know it. Same DNA as the owner. However, the fertalized egg is completely new DNA. And of course, an egg without the added ingredient can never grow nor can a sperm grow. Something else must be added. But with a fertalized egg, all that is needed is proper food and environment.


True. I have the DNA of my great-great granddad, but we're still separate beings.

Yep. But not identical. Different in some way. Separate beings.


I disagree that the two are analogous. The caterpillar is an independent living being with consciousness. His change into a butterfly does not alter his status as an independent being with at least a limited self-consciousness.

So to kill the caterpillar is to kill a life.


A better example would be: at what point does the thing in the egg become a caterpillar?

Either way, the life is the same life through the whole process. All that changed is the body.


That's true, but doesn't answer the most important question: when does it become a person?

Human life is person regardless of the form the body takes.


It's viewed as a living document by (I thought) everyone. It's the only reason it's lasted so long. If it weren't a living document, blacks, for example, would still be fractions of people. Were it not living, it could not be amended. And the framers amended it themselves upon ratification.

Not by everyone. Nor was it meant to be by the framers. It can be amended and changed. By living, I meant changing as society changed without amendment. Living doesn't mean it can't be added to or subtracted from. That was provided for. What was not provided for was for the judges to decide something new was to be law. That is what congress is for. The judges are way outside their intended function in society.

Libre
Jun 13th 2008, 08:28 PM
The pertenant legal concept regarding cases, including Roe v Wade, is ‘Stare Decisis’ (stand by that which is decided) and that is the basis upon which Clarence Thomas declined to rule against Roe v. Wade. Thomas meant that although he would have ruled against Roe v. Wade in 1973, he would not do so now because the 1973 Supreme Court ruling had been in force for a quarter century and hence has precedential weight.

So, as far as one more judge, it won't matter. The judges uphold the Constitution and the prior judgments unless they find the precedents were unconstitutional. This is not likely to happen. For they would have to ignore Thomas's finding as well. Many conservative judges have disappointed the conservatives and will do so again. As well, liberal judges have disappointed the liberals. Because it really does all come down to the Constitution. A Supreme Court Justice leaves politics behind when he or she is on that bench.

BTW, the Senate has impeachment power over the justices. And the House conducts the trial.

Pat

Brother Mark
Jun 13th 2008, 08:32 PM
The pertenant legal concept regarding cases, including Roe v Wade, is ‘Stare Decisis’ (stand by that which is decided) and that is the basis upon which Clarence Thomas declined to rule against Roe v. Wade. Thomas meant that although he would have ruled against Roe v. Wade in 1973, he would not do so now because the 1973 Supreme Court ruling had been in force for a quarter century and hence has precedential weight.

So, as far as one more judge, it won't matter. The judges uphold the Constitution and the prior judgments unless they find the precedents were unconstitutional. This is not likely to happen. For they would have to ignore Thomas's finding as well. Many conservative judges have disappointed the conservatives and will do so again. As well, liberal judges have disappointed the liberals. Because it really does all come down to the Constitution. A Supreme Court Justice leaves politics behind when he or she is on that bench.

BTW, the Senate has impeachment power over the justices. And the House conducts the trial.

Pat

Many anti-abortion laws have been shot down by a 5-4 vote.

Yes, I am aware of impeachment rulings. However, one cannot be impeached for improper opinion.

So, in your opinion, it doesn't matter if one murders a child if the court oks it? And we should not try to get rid of that ruling?

For 200 years, states were allowed to outlaw abortion. Only in 73 did that change. One more judge and many abortion rulings will be overturned.

Alas, if only my liberal christian brothers and sisters would defend the innocent as they do the poor!

So, what does the bible say about life beginning at conception? As another has stated, why do you avoid the scriptures?

EarlyCall
Jun 13th 2008, 10:31 PM
I get it, earlycall. But I will not put my values on someone else when it comes to this. It is personal. That is what divides liberal from conservative in many cases. But you see, liberals have a hard time with unjust wars and the killing of the innocents. We see that as worse than abortion.

Sure, but the problem here is this: the unjust war is merely your opinion. You cannot prove it unjust by God or His word. Abortion however can be proven to be wrong by God and His word. See the difference?

As a Christian, what I allow is not always what I would do. But as a citizen under the laws of this country, and in a pluralistic society, I must allow for individual rights, as is guaranteed by our constitution, and as based on documents like the Declaration of Independence which is the basis of our law. Not the laws of the Bible. And I understand the judicial opinions that were given for cases like Roe v Wade. I also accept them and agree with the consenting ones over the dissenting ones.

Well, sure. The law of the land allows abortion. However, law of the land or not, you agree or not, it will bring the hand of God down on this nation. Unfortunately, we will all of us have to pay that price.

Now you may disagree with that too, but you would be wrong. The bible offers many examples of God sending judgment upon nations and peoples because of their wickedness and sinfulness. Ours is long overdue.

But hey, nevermind God, this is America and we have our laws!

So, we remain in our respective sides aboard the ship of state, keeping her from floundering. Too much left or right creates a circle. I used to have a canoe. More than any other craft, a canoe needs equal force applied against the water to steer straight. We are doing our part when we vote. The electorate has an uncanny way of course correction. Beautiful, isn't it? Even when it doesn't go our way.

Pat


Actually what I've seen over the past forty years roughly is the ship has steered way off course and is due for quite the correction. But that correction will come from God - not congress.

I can't help but wonder why liberals have so little problem with wickedness, but I'm getting a good feel for it from listening to you.

By the way, I think you seem like a really nice person. Honest. I'm just not going to mince words with you about something I feel so strongly about.

Actually, I have a Jewish friend that doesn't believe in God, secular Jew I guess he is and he is a liberal. We agree on very little. But he is one of my best friends a person could ever hope to have. I wouldn't trade him in for a conservative. :)

Libre
Jun 13th 2008, 10:37 PM
Why are so many staunch defenders of the unborn, but don't get upset about starving children in the third world, or dead children in Iraq, etc? Why is it always about abortion and denying women the right to choose? That's what I don't get. Yes, if the court finds that a woman does have that right, then she does in this country.

Your out of context scriptures I will not comment on. Sorry. Life began in Eden. Every live cell in our bodies has the potential to become a new human by cloning. Whatever will we do about that when they finally, and they will, do that? Will it be illegal to have surgery? Or will the nurses save all living tissue and rush it to tissue banks?

Pregnancies are ended every day for millions of women because of natural, and often unnoticed, processes. Natural abortions/miscarriages. God doesn't choose to stop them.

Yeah, I know, this is futile. And I guess I'll stop now and unsubscribe this thread. But it has been interesting and I've learned a lot. Mainly not to argue scriptural points out of context. In context, sure. But I really don't think it would do any good. It's nearly summer and I have other things to do.

Pat

redeemedbyhim
Jun 13th 2008, 11:17 PM
Why are so many staunch defenders of the unborn, but don't get upset about starving children in the third world, or dead children in Iraq, etc? Why is it always about abortion and denying women the right to choose? That's what I don't get. Yes, if the court finds that a woman does have that right, then she does in this country.

Your out of context scriptures I will not comment on. Sorry. Life began in Eden. Every live cell in our bodies has the potential to become a new human by cloning. Whatever will we do about that when they finally, and they will, do that? Will it be illegal to have surgery? Or will the nurses save all living tissue and rush it to tissue banks?

Pregnancies are ended every day for millions of women because of natural, and often unnoticed, processes. Natural abortions/miscarriages. God doesn't choose to stop them.

Yeah, I know, this is futile. And I guess I'll stop now and unsubscribe this thread. But it has been interesting and I've learned a lot. Mainly not to argue scriptural points out of context. In context, sure. But I really don't think it would do any good. It's nearly summer and I have other things to do.

Pat

On the off chance that you'll stay to defend your position, I would like to know just one thing. If and when the war in Iraq is over and all the troops come home, then would you support not killing the child in the womb?

You see, wars come and they go, it's been that way since....oh, let's see...oh yes, the OT times. But, sadly, the war against the unborn will rage on and on, won't it?
So, all the starving babies round the world will keep on starving if we stop abortion on demand?
One has nothing to do with the other. God said charity starts at home.

I wish you had enough confidence in your beliefs that you would have corrected all these scriptures that were taken "out of context". Maybe we could have learned something togeather.

But, now you'll pick up your ball and go home. Pity.

Brother Mark
Jun 13th 2008, 11:23 PM
Why are so many staunch defenders of the unborn, but don't get upset about starving children in the third world, or dead children in Iraq, etc? Why is it always about abortion and denying women the right to choose? That's what I don't get. Yes, if the court finds that a woman does have that right, then she does in this country.

One, we get upset about the children dying in Iraq! Many terrorist continue to use suicide bombers and they don't care if children die. By all means let stop them from killing babies too! And many of us help the starving kids. But let's be clear, there are MILLIONS of babies killed each year through abortion. If that many 2 year olds died each year, it would be the top news story in every nation. Shoot, not even close to that many people die of aids.

So, if the court finds a woman has a right to kill a 2 year old, does she? Nope. And we should do everything in our power to protect that innocent 2 year old from being killed by her mother.


Your out of context scriptures I will not comment on. Sorry. Life began in Eden. Every live cell in our bodies has the potential to become a new human by cloning. Whatever will we do about that when they finally, and they will, do that? Will it be illegal to have surgery? Or will the nurses save all living tissue and rush it to tissue banks?Life did begin in Eden. Of course, Adam and Eve are the only two human beings that didn't come from an egg and sperm. Cloning is another issue. But once that egg is impregnated as a clone, I would fight to protect it too. We can deal with those scriptures in as broad a context as you wish. Why not bring in scripture? I don't mind using broader context.


Pregnancies are ended every day for millions of women because of natural, and often unnoticed, processes. Natural abortions/miscarriages. God doesn't choose to stop them. Millions of people die of natural causes every year, including the unborn. That is God's place and not ours. That's why he said "Thou shalt not murder".


Yeah, I know, this is futile. And I guess I'll stop now and unsubscribe this thread. But it has been interesting and I've learned a lot. Mainly not to argue scriptural points out of context. In context, sure. But I really don't think it would do any good. It's nearly summer and I have other things to do.

Pat
Where have you or anyone else spoken of spiritual principles out of context? You won't even address scripture. But many of us are willing to.

Libre
Jun 14th 2008, 12:10 AM
OK, I'm bored so I'm reading this. One more time. I don't view the OT laws as something binding on Christians. We are under the Golden Rule, or law of love, the law of Christ. It is rather subjective, for what I would that my neighbor do to me may not be what my neighbor would want done to him. It don't see black and white answers. That makes folks nervous, but that is how we are called to live in the spirit. Listening to Him.

The Gentiles were never under Mosaic law. Christians, whether they come out of other religions, or Judaism, are not under Mosaic law in any case. And many disagree with that. But Jesus said He was going away and would send a comforter to remind them of all He said. And they wrote it down. It's called the NT. The OT is instructive, but also destructive, for it puts us under law. It does this because it shows us sin. Before we learn the law, we are not under it. But in any case, Jesus is the one God said to hear.

So, quibbling about the start of life according to scripture is pointless to me. A waste of time. For there is a higher law that encompasses the rest. It is that law of Christ and it sets us free from the law of sin and death. I don't think in terms of sin. I think in terms of showing His love which is shed in our hearts.

K?

Pat

Brother Mark
Jun 14th 2008, 01:22 AM
OK, I'm bored so I'm reading this. One more time. I don't view the OT laws as something binding on Christians. We are under the Golden Rule, or law of love, the law of Christ. It is rather subjective, for what I would that my neighbor do to me may not be what my neighbor would want done to him. It don't see black and white answers. That makes folks nervous, but that is how we are called to live in the spirit. Listening to Him.

I would consider the unborn baby my neighbor. Certainly the law of love would want him/her to live.


The Gentiles were never under Mosaic law. Christians, whether they come out of other religions, or Judaism, are not under Mosaic law in any case. And many disagree with that. But Jesus said He was going away and would send a comforter to remind them of all He said. And they wrote it down. It's called the NT. The OT is instructive, but also destructive, for it puts us under law. It does this because it shows us sin. Before we learn the law, we are not under it. But in any case, Jesus is the one God said to hear.

All the OT is not the Mosaic Law. That's why I asked earlier about it. But just to bear with it... if it shows us our sin, that is a good thing. For it will lead us to repentance. Does it show us that killing babies is sinful?



So, quibbling about the start of life according to scripture is pointless to me. A waste of time. For there is a higher law that encompasses the rest. It is that law of Christ and it sets us free from the law of sin and death. I don't think in terms of sin. I think in terms of showing His love which is shed in our hearts.

K?

Pat

Nope. Not OK. ;) Could I not use the same arguments to suggest killing a 2 year old is OK that you use to say killing an unborn baby is OK?

I do like the higher law though, the law of love. For certainly we should love the unborn and protect them from death. Right?

Now, if one is not going to use scripture to say when life starts, what are we to use?

Libre
Jun 14th 2008, 01:44 AM
We are going to start with what choice the woman makes. We can inform her of some facts, give her options where she can give birth and assist her after, or provide access to adoption agencies. We don't tell her what to do. If she chooses to terminate, we let her. And support her in her decision. Counsel, but not coercion, shame, or guilt.

Pat

redeemedbyhim
Jun 14th 2008, 03:22 AM
We are going to start with what choice the woman makes. We can inform her of some facts, give her options where she can give birth and assist her after, or provide access to adoption agencies. We don't tell her what to do. If she chooses to terminate, we let her. And support her in her decision. Counsel, but not coercion, shame, or guilt.

Pat

Framing the discussion in only terms you'll abide by and set is rather un-fair, don't you think?

Why doesn't the "law" of love apply to the child in the womb?
What facts would you inform her of?
Would any of those facts stem from the "law of love"?

Do you know why Jesus spent specific time with and gave specific examples of how we are to treat children?
Did you know that abortion, infanticide and child abandoment was legal by Roman law in His days on earth?

Libre
Jun 14th 2008, 04:22 AM
Well, others want to frame it in only isolated scriptural terms. I won't go there. The concept is broader than proof texts. The law of Christ, of do unto others, is open to different understandings of what you want. It's not up to your neighbor to decided, as it's not up to you to decide what your neighbor would have you do for/to him.

Love extends to all life. But the unborn are the province of the one who is pregnant. We love the one we can minister to first. I would inform her of what exactly was taking place in her uterus. I would counsel her about the likelihood of remorse. And I would offer her alternatives to ending her pregnancy. If she's afraid of labor, I would tell her abortions are little births. They are not painless. And there are way to manage pain in labor. Then I would support her in whatever decision she made.

Most of all, I would tell her Jesus loved her. I would not try to guilt her or shame her into doing what I want her to do. I would not throw the law of the Bible at her. It's the goodness of God that leads to repentance. I would makes sure I told her that He is always ready to forgive if she comes in Jesus' name. Without Jesus, I would tell her, she has only small hope. With Him, she has sure hope.

Pat

quiet dove
Jun 14th 2008, 05:46 AM
...the unborn are the province of the one who is pregnant.
That does not mean it is ok to take the life of the one who grows with in them

We love the one we can minister to first.Doesn't that also mean being honest with them in that they are taking the life


Without Jesus, I would tell her, she has only small hope. With Him, she has sure hope.
Without Jesus, they have no hope, not "only small hope"

I am not talking about condemning those who have had abortions. But you can be honest with someone without "guilting" them into making a decision. Honest is honest and dishonest is dishonest. There is no in between.


The law of Christ, of do unto others, is open to different understandings of what you want.How does this have a meaning left open to interpretation. Seems pretty clear cut. Do unto other as you would have them do unto you.

I have met women who have had abortions, I would guess that many of us have. I would be the first to assure them that Jesus loves them and like us all, they can have eternal life and forgiveness of sins through Jesus Christ. We all stand on equal ground there. And I would do my best to help an unwed mother with out judging her for being an unwed mother, but I would not tell her that her baby was not a growing human being life inside her. And if she had an abortion anyway, I would try to help her pick up the pieces later without condemnation. But I would know in my heart that at least I was honest with her and had no part in her decision or any heart ache she suffered because of her decision. But I would certainly be there for her without condemnation and doing and saying all I could to let her know Jesus loves her.

My point is honesty about what abortion is, she may thank you someday for her decision to spare the life that was spared.

EarlyCall
Jun 14th 2008, 10:13 AM
Well, others want to frame it in only isolated scriptural terms. I won't go there. The concept is broader than proof texts. The law of Christ, of do unto others, is open to different understandings of what you want. It's not up to your neighbor to decided, as it's not up to you to decide what your neighbor would have you do for/to him.

Love extends to all life. But the unborn are the province of the one who is pregnant. We love the one we can minister to first. I would inform her of what exactly was taking place in her uterus. I would counsel her about the likelihood of remorse. And I would offer her alternatives to ending her pregnancy. If she's afraid of labor, I would tell her abortions are little births. They are not painless. And there are way to manage pain in labor. Then I would support her in whatever decision she made.

Most of all, I would tell her Jesus loved her. I would not try to guilt her or shame her into doing what I want her to do. I would not throw the law of the Bible at her. It's the goodness of God that leads to repentance. I would makes sure I told her that He is always ready to forgive if she comes in Jesus' name. Without Jesus, I would tell her, she has only small hope. With Him, she has sure hope.

Pat

I notice you refuse to address certain scripture. I know why. It contradicts you and your thinking in some cases. You must ignore it, discount it and so forth.

Yes, this is what I believe, because I believe you want to play on the outer fringes and accept only the parts of God's word that fit in with your thinking. You want to focus on the pleasant, the good and the pretty. At the same time you want to ignore the hard, cold facts God lays down before us concerning sin and morality.

Some of what you ignore is the judgment God will bring on this nation for its sin. You like to frame things in love and goodwill and other pleasantries and ignore the consequences of sin while citing our constitution; as though our constitution somehow negates God's judgment for sin because we have rights.

It is convenient for you then to claim any scripture contradictory to your thinking is isolated and out of context. That's fine. You do so at your own peril.

You have claimed in this thread that you believe life begins with the first breath. Is that correct? Can you please give the scripture for this? Surely it is scripture upon which you base this right? Because science doesn't support this.

Further, you have repeatedly proclaimed you will not debate nor even discuss what you consider to be isolated scripture taken out of context. It is my belief what you really mean is that you will not discuss nor debate any scripture that runs contrary to your thinking.

Regardless, once you've disclosed the scripture saying life begins at first breath, can you then explain why that scripture is not isolated and taken out of context?

Brother Mark
Jun 14th 2008, 12:25 PM
We are going to start with what choice the woman makes. We can inform her of some facts, give her options where she can give birth and assist her after, or provide access to adoption agencies. We don't tell her what to do. If she chooses to terminate, we let her. And support her in her decision. Counsel, but not coercion, shame, or guilt.

Pat

And that same standard can apply to a woman who wishes to kill her 2 year old, right? How is that loving the unborn child?

What does the bible say?

Brother Mark
Jun 14th 2008, 12:28 PM
Well, others want to frame it in only isolated scriptural terms. I won't go there.

As opposed to not using scripture at all. Pat, what scripture do you use? So far, you have used "isolated scripture" to justify your position. I have gladly used that scripture too in order to say we should love the infant as well.



The concept is broader than proof texts. The law of Christ, of do unto others, is open to different understandings of what you want. It's not up to your neighbor to decided, as it's not up to you to decide what your neighbor would have you do for/to him.

Yes, lets do that. Do unto the unborn child what you would have them do unto you. Apply that law, and no one would kill the infant.


Love extends to all life. But the unborn are the province of the one who is pregnant. We love the one we can minister to first. I would inform her of what exactly was taking place in her uterus. I would counsel her about the likelihood of remorse. And I would offer her alternatives to ending her pregnancy. If she's afraid of labor, I would tell her abortions are little births. They are not painless. And there are way to manage pain in labor. Then I would support her in whatever decision she made.

Is the 2 year old the province of the mother? Does the unborn life have no right to life? Does government not have a stop murder?


Most of all, I would tell her Jesus loved her. I would not try to guilt her or shame her into doing what I want her to do. I would not throw the law of the Bible at her. It's the goodness of God that leads to repentance. I would makes sure I told her that He is always ready to forgive if she comes in Jesus' name. Without Jesus, I would tell her, she has only small hope. With Him, she has sure hope.

Does Jesus love the unborn baby? How bout you Pat, do you love the unborn baby?

redeemedbyhim
Jun 14th 2008, 02:58 PM
Well, others want to frame it in only isolated scriptural terms. I won't go there. The concept is broader than proof texts. The law of Christ, of do unto others, is open to different understandings of what you want. It's not up to your neighbor to decided, as it's not up to you to decide what your neighbor would have you do for/to him.

Let's not isolate the Scripture you've chosen to use to demonstrate your beliefs. Here it is word for word in context.

Matthew 7:12

So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
Matthew 19:19
Jesus replied, " 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother,' and love your neighbor as yourself.

How is supporting someone who has chosen abortion demonstrated in the "Law of Christ", as you have stated?



Love extends to all life. But the unborn are the province of the one who is pregnant.

I'm trying to understand how one's child is the "province" of his or her's mother in context to abortion.
Are you saying the mother "owns" her child? Province can mean, "the proper sphere or extent of your activities", and "territory occupied...".



We love the one we can minister to first. I would inform her of what exactly was taking place in her uterus. I would counsel her about the likelihood of remorse. And I would offer her alternatives to ending her pregnancy. If she's afraid of labor, I would tell her abortions are little births. They are not painless. And there are way to manage pain in labor.

Wise counsel, indeed.


Then I would support her in whatever decision she made.

If you refuse to look at the whole of God's Word concerning life and our God given duties and responsibilites then it's hard to explain how terrbily wrong it is to support a decision of abortion, should this mother in your example decide to abort.
Though, in the end, we cannot force someone to do what we would want, it is our responsibility to tell the mother she has decided to murder her own child. Yes, murder. God's Word clearly states, "Thou shalt not murder."
We have to know what murder is, and no earthly law supercedes God's laws, I'm sure you would agree.
Murder is the intentional taking of an innocent life and in abortion it is pre-meditated.


Most of all, I would tell her Jesus loved her. I would not try to guilt her or shame her into doing what I want her to do. I would not throw the law of the Bible at her. It's the goodness of God that leads to repentance.

Yes, all true. We can't guilt someone into serving God, but we must be truthful, for in the end, God will hold us accountable for being truthful or not. So, it would seem the woman in your example is not saved, or is she saved and you know she will need "repentance" for the act of aborting.
I think that is a very important question that needs answering.


I would makes sure I told her that He is always ready to forgive if she comes in Jesus' name.

True, again. So, by this statement it sounds (correct me if I'm wrong), that you believe this woman has committed a sin in aborting. If that's the case, then how can we, as Christians, support such sin?


Without Jesus, I would tell her, she has only small hope. With Him, she has sure hope.

Someone has all ready made an important distinction, without Jesus we are completely without hope. He is our only Hope and without Him we are lost in our sins and will face a hell's grave.

Thanks, by the way, for hanging in here. It takes a certain amount of courage to face opposition and I think we can all learn from each other.

EarlyCall
Jun 14th 2008, 03:02 PM
Thanks, by the way, for hanging in here. It takes a certain amount of courage to face opposition and I think we can all learn from each other.

I second that. Libre has been "up against it" in this thread and has been a super sport about it throughout. Very commendable.

Libre
Jun 14th 2008, 03:29 PM
I have given scripture for my belief on this. All about the law of Christ (Matt 22:36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law? 37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.) and the golden rule (Mt 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets).

Also pertinent here:
Ro 10:4 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=ro+10:4&translation=kjv&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
Ga 6:2 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=ga+6:2&translation=kjv&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ. And that we are not under the letter of the OT law.

I do understand that life pretty much begins either at conception or by the time the embryo has blood circulating. The life is in the blood (Lev 17:11 - although it is speaking of animal sacrifices). Adam also became a living soul when God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life (Gen 2:7).

And again, BrotherMark, we are not talking about 2 year olds - unless they are being terrible, of course.

As for isolated and out of context, I mean that the Mosaic laws were given and written to the Hebrews. Not the Gentiles. Not only has Christ redeemed believers from the curse of the law (Gal 3:13) but the Gentiles were never under it (Rom 2:14) so why do we put them under it? The apostles didn't (Acts 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: 20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood).

So, arguing about when life starts and applying it to nonbelievers is not productive. If a believer desires an abortion, that is still between her and God. The laws of the land do not condemn her nor constrain her. Neither do I. She is free to decide and free to suffer the consequences, as we all have when we have decided wrongly to do a thing.

I'm sure I didn't address something important, but all the breaks to cite scripture, which you all could look up anyway, makes it hard to follow my own train of thought. So I may add another post. For I am sure you will point out my omissions.:spin:

BTW, it's not as brutal here as some places. I've been on boards where some will pm you until you have to block their pms. One even began to email me, and I had to block him and tell the mods.

Pat

redeemedbyhim
Jun 14th 2008, 04:56 PM
I have given scripture for my belief on this. All about the law of Christ (Matt 22:36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law? 37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.) and the golden rule (Mt 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets).

I'm probably just dense, so forgive me, but I don't see where this applies to abortion on demand being something a Christian should support?


Also pertinent here:
Ro 10:4 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=ro+10:4&translation=kjv&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
Ga 6:2 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=ga+6:2&translation=kjv&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ. And that we are not under the letter of the OT law.

I'm glad to see you using Scritpure, but how is this in context?
Then we may now use Scripture too? I believe we must, as the Word says; "ALL Scripture is given by God ans is profitable for instruction and correction".

So, in relation to Rom. 10:4 are you thinking this means the "law" is done away with? The 10 Commandments are still in effect, correct?
Then we must obey them, even though we are saved by grace.
"Thou shalt not murder" is still in effect.

In fulfilling the law of Christ we are to bear one another's burdens, how does this relate to support of abortion on demand?


I do understand that life pretty much begins either at conception or by the time the embryo has blood circulating. The life is in the blood (Lev 17:11 - although it is speaking of animal sacrifices). Adam also became a living soul when God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life (Gen 2:7).

I believe we can also use the Scriptures that say, "BEFORE you were formed in your mother's womb, I KNEW you". God knows all things, at all times. Before He laid the foundation of the world He knew each of us and had a purpose and specific plan for each. When abortion is an option and supported, don't you believe that interfers with God's ordained plans? And how can we, as Christians, not forwarn others this is what happens with abortion on demand?
If we do not forewarn, is not the blood of those we do not tell, on our hands?
We were all made in God's image, were we not?
Genesis 9:6
Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the IMAGE of God made he man.


As for isolated and out of context, I mean that the Mosaic laws were given and written to the Hebrews. Not the Gentiles. Not only has Christ redeemed believers from the curse of the law (Gal 3:13) but the Gentiles were never under it (Rom 2:14) so why do we put them under it? The apostles didn't (Acts 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: 20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood).

They were talking about circumcision here, to apply it to not telling the unbeliever of the whole cousel of God doesn't seem appropriate.
Jesus did not come to do away with the law, but to fullfil the law.
Matthew 5:17
Think not that I came to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.


So, arguing about when life starts and applying it to nonbelievers is not productive. If a believer desires an abortion, that is still between her and God. The laws of the land do not condemn her nor constrain her. Neither do I. She is free to decide and free to suffer the consequences, as we all have when we have decided wrongly to do a thing.

But, do not the laws of God supercede the law of the land? Are we not instructed to obey God rather than man?


I'm sure I didn't address something important, but all the breaks to cite scripture, which you all could look up anyway, makes it hard to follow my own train of thought. So I may add another post. For I am sure you will point out my omissions.:spin:

There are so many Scriptures that point to the sancity of life and God's view on shedding innocent blood, that I'm sure all of us have missed addressing something important.
And I know what you mean about it being hard to follow our own train of thought! ;)


BTW, it's not as brutal here as some places. I've been on boards where some will pm you until you have to block their pms. One even began to email me, and I had to block him and tell the mods.

Pat

Well, I'm sure glad we're not brutal! That's not much of a Christian witness is it?
You've been gracious and like someone said, that's commendable.

quiet dove
Jun 14th 2008, 05:42 PM
You guys are going round and round here.


But, do not the laws of God supercede the law of the land? Are we not instructed to obey God rather than man? This is true, but what you guys need to consider is, as believers, all we can do is support the candidate who we feel will best represent our country in a Godly manner. Hopefully there is a genuine believer running. And all we can do is support the passing of laws that we believe to be correct. But when push comes to shove, we are not called to 'force' the world to live by our moral standards, we all know that won't nor can happen for the things of God are foolishness to those who do not believe.

When laws are passed to make things legal that we disagree with, we are still called to do the same thing we have always been called to do, preach the Love of Christ-the Gospel.

What I am saying is, vote for the candidates that best represent your beliefs, and keep doing what we are called to do, preach the Good News of Jesus Christ.

Lets try to get this thread back on track and about what Obama may or may not support according to our beliefs and stop on the going on and on about abortion and whether it is right or wrong.

Libre
Jun 14th 2008, 05:50 PM
I am not denying the sanctity of life. And the law is not for us. It is embodied in the law of Christ, the law of the spirit of life in Christ which has set us free from the law of sin and death. Romans 8:2. I feel like Jack Van Impe, quoting as I go. I can't follow much of what he says because of it. Oh well.

A Christian may support the law of the land, which includes abortion on demand. A Christian does not have to support it. But we may not prevent others from what is there's under it, unless we want to break the law - and some do.

As a political liberal, I agree with the support of women's rights, which includes abortion. It's part of who I am. I could not become again a conservative. Been there, done that, as they say. God led me to a better way. You may not think so, but there are many who believe like I do. I will not put my beliefs on those who hold different ones. Without Jesus, they will not be able to live it. Or will have the form of it but not the truth of it.

The difference seems to be one of outlook. Liberals like to talk about broad concepts, and think that by talking, any reasonable person would see what they see. They tend to not make a lot of noise, and to back away from fights. It is a failing, but one that goes with the territory it seems. They don't call the two sides the fighting fundies and evangelly bellies for nothin'! :spin:

Pat

Libre
Jun 14th 2008, 06:03 PM
I agree. I posted before yours appeared. It sorta started because it was said a Christian couldn't support Obama because of his stand. When I said I supported him, the questions started.

Pat

redeemedbyhim
Jun 14th 2008, 06:33 PM
Lets discuss Obama and where he puts his faith and who or what determines his values. If you disagree with his stance on abortion, don't vote for him!

There can always be a thread started to discuss the specific issue of abortion.

That's the thing, because his personal values determine what sin is, he is therefore able to support abortion on demand up to and thru all nine months of pregnancy.

But, if that's deemed beyond the scope of the OP, then I'll respect those wishes.

Brother Mark
Jun 14th 2008, 07:32 PM
I do understand that life pretty much begins either at conception or by the time the embryo has blood circulating. The life is in the blood (Lev 17:11 - although it is speaking of animal sacrifices). Adam also became a living soul when God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life (Gen 2:7).

And again, BrotherMark, we are not talking about 2 year olds - unless they are being terrible, of course.

Isn't the standard for the way we treat life that same whether someone is 2, 20, or 100? If it is sinful to kill a 2 year old, the surely it is sinful to kill a 100 year old. And if life begins at conception or at blood flow, then surely it is sinful to kill that life.


As for isolated and out of context, I mean that the Mosaic laws were given and written to the Hebrews. Not the Gentiles. Not only has Christ redeemed believers from the curse of the law (Gal 3:13) but the Gentiles were never under it (Rom 2:14) so why do we put them under it? The apostles didn't (Acts 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: 20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood).

Yet, you still haven't told me what the law is. Is the Psalms considered the Mosaic law? No, they are not. Then can we use the Psalms? The prophets are considered Mosiac Law either. Can we use the prophets? Oh, and Jesus said we are still to live by the spirit of the law, which would be to love all life, including the life of the unborn.


So, arguing about when life starts and applying it to nonbelievers is not productive. If a believer desires an abortion, that is still between her and God. The laws of the land do not condemn her nor constrain her.

On the contrary! If the law of God says to love life, then to kill life is to be condemned by the law. I can argue about when life begins with the unbeliever through science and do it convincingly. Very few pro-abortion unbelievers will want to speak of when life begins. Nor do many believers who are pro-abortion wish to discuss when life begins. Why do you think that is? It is because if they discuss it, then they have to come to grips with there concept that it is OK to take a human life.


Neither do I. She is free to decide and free to suffer the consequences, as we all have when we have decided wrongly to do a thing.

So I should be free to murder you and suffer the consequences? Please tell me the difference if the unborn baby is alive, between killing a 2 year old and killing the living unborn baby.


I'm sure I didn't address something important, but all the breaks to cite scripture, which you all could look up anyway, makes it hard to follow my own train of thought. So I may add another post. For I am sure you will point out my omissions.:spin:

BTW, it's not as brutal here as some places. I've been on boards where some will pm you until you have to block their pms. One even began to email me, and I had to block him and tell the mods.

Pat


We try to keep things friendly here, even if they are pointed.

Brother Mark
Jun 14th 2008, 07:35 PM
I am not denying the sanctity of life. And the law is not for us. It is embodied in the law of Christ, the law of the spirit of life in Christ which has set us free from the law of sin and death. Romans 8:2. I feel like Jack Van Impe, quoting as I go. I can't follow much of what he says because of it. Oh well.

So murder is OK? We shouldn't outlaw murder?


A Christian may support the law of the land, which includes abortion on demand. A Christian does not have to support it. But we may not prevent others from what is there's under it, unless we want to break the law - and some do.

So if Nazi's decide to kill Jews as the law of the land, a Christian can support that?


As a political liberal, I agree with the support of women's rights, which includes abortion. It's part of who I am. I could not become again a conservative. Been there, done that, as they say. God led me to a better way. You may not think so, but there are many who believe like I do. I will not put my beliefs on those who hold different ones. Without Jesus, they will not be able to live it. Or will have the form of it but not the truth of it.

Yet, you do put your beliefs on folks with taxes. Already said that. And of course, you won't let an unbeliever kill their 2 year old because, well that would be wrong. But you'll let them kill their unborn. Don't you think that inconsistent?


The difference seems to be one of outlook. Liberals like to talk about broad concepts, and think that by talking, any reasonable person would see what they see. They tend to not make a lot of noise, and to back away from fights. It is a failing, but one that goes with the territory it seems. They don't call the two sides the fighting fundies and evangelly bellies for nothin'! :spin:

Pat


As is often said, the devil is in the details. He can hide in details when all we discuss is the big picture. ;)

Brother Mark
Jun 14th 2008, 07:36 PM
Lets discuss Obama and where he puts his faith and who or what determines his values. If you disagree with his stance on abortion, don't vote for him!

There can always be a thread started to discuss the specific issue of abortion.

Opps. Sorry for hijacking the thread. We can split it if you like.

Libre
Jun 14th 2008, 08:22 PM
How 'bout a little fun? Watch the God-O-Meter:

http://blog.beliefnet.com/godometer/2008/04/obamas-values-guy-in-pennsylva.html

Now click on McCain's name (there's no head to click on, instructions to the contrary - the candidate list is down on the left side of the page. Edit:right side of page - I'm left handed and get mixed up......

Enjoy.

Pat

quiet dove
Jun 15th 2008, 12:06 AM
Opps. Sorry for hijacking the thread. We can split it if you like.

I was going to split it, but in looking through the post it goes back to far. There are two threads going on the same topic and my plan was to try and focus everyone into one thread with the abortion topic. But everyone is pretty settled in there conversations so I'll just leave everything as it is and you guys all carry on.
http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k204/qdove/photos/hide.gif I'm sorry.

redeemedbyhim
Jun 15th 2008, 03:57 AM
I was going to split it, but in looking through the post it goes back to far. There are two threads going on the same topic and my plan was to try and focus everyone into one thread with the abortion topic. But everyone is pretty settled in there conversations so I'll just leave everything as it is and you guys all carry on.
http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k204/qdove/photos/hide.gif I'm sorry.

That is the cutest little, "I'm sorry" I've ever seen!
Who could resist that? :)