One problem I have with Christianity

[Reformationist]

I would say for one that man has to start to realize who the Head of the Church is suppose to be and that is Jesus Christ and not man.

Anything contrary to that is, in reality, a manifestation of the heretical teachings of newer churches, not the "older generation."

Churches for years have been governed by man and mans laws.

Well, it is rather pointless to speak of disobedient churches in this instance, don't you think? There are many self-proclaimed church's who deny the eternal unity of the Godhead. That doesn't make such a view valid, nor is it a new heresy, nor is the "new, post modern church" the first to deal with it, if they are dealing with it.

Churches have accepted what is totally unacceptable to God. They have also put a hinderance on the Holy Spirit. Preachers are told what they are and are not allowed to preach on. They have been tending sheep and not building warriors. A preacher is a man chosen by God to deliver a message from Him to his flock, who is man to hinder the Word of the God. Praise and worship is to be a big part of going to the Lords house but many churches are against any type of worship in His house. The Bible states that God will restore the house of David. That is taking place right now as the full gospel spirit filled churches are starting to thrive and they should be, as we should be able to worship our Lord the way we choose in HIS HOUSE.
God bless you,
TJ

Okay. Again I ask what it is that the "older generation" is leaving behind that the "new, post modern church" thinks they are correcting? These views have been around since the earliest days of fallen man and it isn't the "new, post modern church" that is going to eradicate them. To be honest, it has been my experience that the "new, post modern church" is responsible for much of the heresy in Christendom today.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

the problem i have with pro-life is this: a mother of two young children is raped. she finds out that the childbirth will likely kill her. is it not selfish to let herself die, leaving three motherless children behind, one of whom will never know his father either. and if the government says she cannot have an abortion, even if childbirth would be life-threatening, is that not murder.

So many "pro-choice" advocates regularly fall back on such hypothetical theories and it becomes quite obvious that they haven't taken the time to research how often such a hypothetical situation is the reason for abortion.

Let me help you out here. I'll list the reasons women give for having an abortion and show a percentage of how often that is a reason given:

To postpone childbearing (25.5%), cannot afford to have a baby (21.3%), relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy (14.1%), too young; parents or others object to pregnancy (12.2%), having a child will disrupt job or education (10.8%), want no more children (7.9%). Now, let's combine all of the reasons that you say would be acceptable:

• 3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health.
• 2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health.
• 2.1% of women have an abortion for other reasons not listed

Let's assume that rape and incest fall into the 2.1% of "other reasons not listed" catagory since they are not listed. That means that 8.2% of the women who get abortions possibly do so for the reasons you list. Not a very compelling argument Mdude.

i am not pro-abortion, i am pro-choice, because i think there are some situations that warrant an abortion. i cannot imagine every possible situation. so i think it is the choice of the person carrying the baby. and if she makes a decision that God does not approve of, then she will face that when she dies. but i will not stand by while others force their values on her, especially if it means her life is in danger, not in America, because that is what freedom and liberty are, the right to choose. others may choose whatever they like according to their own beliefs, but they may not make decisions for everyone else based on a personal belief.

Tell me Mdude, in your attempts to rationalize murdering the only party that is universally innocent of contributing to its existance, do you ever stop to consider the baby's choice? You seem to think you separate yourself from the pack because you differentiate between "pro-choice" and "pro-abortion." It is an insubstantial distinction you make because, to do so, you must make man's desires, whether they're contrary to God's Law or not, the definitive mark in whether something should be acceptable.

Truly a sad and terrifying position you place yourself in.

 

[Reformationist]

As for me being pro-choice, I don't see what's wrong with it. Like the above poster, I'm not pro-abortion at all, I'm pro-choice.

Like the previous poster, you make a distinction without a difference.

I believe that women should have the choice of whether or not to continue a pregnancy, and there are many cases where abortion is the only option. There are some cases where the woman's life is in immediate danger if she continues the pregnancy, or the fetus may have little to no chance to survive outside of the womb. There are also the cases of rape, incest, or teen pregnancy where having an abortion may be the best option.

8.2% of all the abortions ace. The saddest part about the comment you make here is that you clearly include cases of "teen pregnacy" in the catagory where "abortion may be the best option." Tell me, best option for whom? The "best option," and make no mistake, sex is an option in most cases of pregnancy, is to not do that which leads to pregnancy until you are in a stable, supportive married relationship that is conducive to caring for the very likely result of having sex.

Adoption isn't usually a realistic option because there are literally thousands of Children in foster care right now and most will be there until they reach legal age (17 or 18 in most states.) I don't like the idea of abortion, but it is a necessary "evil."

It's only necessary to those who want to justify their rebellion against God.

God bless

 

[theseed]

One problem I have with Christianity is that (at least in the USA), the vast majority of Christians are part of the Religious Right and a lot of them promote bigotry and have the view that tolerance is a bad thing. They also think that progressives (or "liberals") are evil and immoral.

That's probably a bit of overgernerlization. Could you provide some examples of bigotry? Why is being "liberal" progressive and not regressive or digressive?

I'm pro-tolerance, pro-peace, pro-choice, pro-equal rights, anti-war, and anti-discrimination.

Perhaps this is bigotry in thinking all Christians are this way? A bit of prejudice? Stereotype?

I grew up in a Christian church where intolerance and ignorance were considered good things, and tolerance, knowledge, logic, and reason were seen as bad.

And you think all churches and Christians our like the ones you know?

Jesus never said to be intolerant and ignorant and pro-war, he said to "love your neighbor as yourself" and even to "love your enemies, and do good to those who curse you."

You have yet not reveal how Christians do these things.

These are the words of Christ:

Matthew 10:34
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

 

[theseed]

As for me being pro-choice, I don't see what's wrong with it. Like the above poster, I'm not pro-abortion at all, I'm pro-choice. I believe that women should have the choice of whether or not to continue a pregnancy, and there are many cases where abortion is the only option.

Do think it is wrong to kill people, but that we should all have a choice? If abortion is murder, then it is wrong and one should not have a choice for murder.

There are some cases where the woman's life is in immediate danger if she continues the pregnancy, or the fetus may have little to no chance to survive outside of the womb. There are also the cases of rape, incest, or teen pregnancy where having an abortion may be the best option.

First you said that it is sometimes the only option, now you say it may be the best option? That would imply that there is always more than one option. What makes aboriton a "better" option?

Adoption isn't usually a realistic option because there are literally thousands of Children in foster care right now and most will be there until they reach legal age (17 or 18 in most states.) I don't like the idea of abortion, but it is a necessary "evil."

So is war. There is 1,000,000 unborn babies that die every year too. Only 2% of abortions involve rape or incest. That means that over 980,000 unborn babies were killed because they were inconvienant.

 

[ace85]

Like the previous poster, you make a distinction without a difference.

No I don't. There is a difference between being pro-choice and pro-abortion. I am very much against abortion, but I don't think the government should be telling people what to do with their bodies.

The saddest part about the comment you make here is that you clearly include cases of "teen pregnacy" in the catagory where "abortion may be the best option." Tell me, best option for whom?

So you would rather have two children's lives be ruined. Imagine a 15 year old girl gets pregnant, and abortion is not an option. Her parents kick her out of the house, she has no money, she has to drop out of school and ends up homeless on the street. How is she going to support herself and the baby? Abortion is clearly the best option in this case.

The "best option," and make no mistake, sex is an option in most cases of pregnancy, is to not do that which leads to pregnancy until you are in a stable, supportive married relationship that is conducive to caring for the very likely result of having sex.

That is unrealistic. Less than 10% of people wait until marriage to have sex. Less than 10%. That means that almost all people don't wait until marriage. Abstinence is not the only way to prevent pregnancy, and there should be better education on ways to prevent disease and unwanted pregnancy. Teen pregnancy has actually gone down since sex ed has been introduced. Just telling people "don't do it" isn't going to accomplish anything.

It's only necessary to those who want to justify their rebellion against God.

I'm not rebelling against God. Just because I don't believe exactly as you do doesn't mean I'm evil and rebelling against God.

 

[ace85]

That's probably a bit of overgernerlization. Could you provide some examples of bigotry?

Conservative Christians are against things like women's rights, gay rights, separation of church and state, and the rights of those who practice other religions or none at all. They want to make their version of morality law by pushing things like constitutional gay marriage bans, overturning Roe v. Wade, taking science out of schools, and removing the separation of church and state.

Why is being "liberal" progressive and not regressive or digressive?

The definition of "liberal" is progressive.

Perhaps this is bigotry in thinking all Christians are this way? A bit of prejudice? Stereotype?

I never said ALL Christians were that way, just that the vast majority of evangelical Christians in the US were. It's not a stereotype.

And you think all churches and Christians our like the ones you know?

No, not all. The majority of the ones I've seen are, though.

These are the words of Christ:

Matthew 10:34
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

Taken out of context. This verse is not about Jesus starting wars, it only means that his message would be divisive to the Jews of the time.

 

[ace85]

Do think it is wrong to kill people, but that we should all have a choice? If abortion is murder, then it is wrong and one should not have a choice for murder.

Of course murder is wrong, but abortion is not murder. Fetuses are not human beings, they are potential human beings. There is a difference. Zygotes are not Children.

First you said that it is sometimes the only option, now you say it may be the best option? That would imply that there is always more than one option. What makes aboriton a "better" option?

Sometimes abortion is the only option that does not result in the death of both the woman and the fetus, and sometimes it is the best and only realistic option, such as in the case of rape, incest, or teen pregnancy.

So is war.

Sometimes war may be necessary, but this war in Iraq is not necessary! Iraq did not attack us. Thousands of US soldiers and innocent Iraqi civilians died in a war for oil. This war is WRONG!

There is 1,000,000 unborn babies that die every year too. Only 2% of abortions involve rape or incest. That means that over 980,000 unborn babies were killed because they were inconvienant.

You don't always know people's situations. Of course some of these abortions were for convenience, but most of them were not. Some of them may not have been financially able to afford to raise a child, some may have been medically unable to give birth, some of them may have decided to abort because the fetus had severe birth defects or brain damage making it impossible for it to live a normal life. There are many different reasons why women have abortions and most of them have nothing to do with convenience.

 

[TheMdude]

So is war. There is 1,000,000 unborn babies that die every year too. Only 2% of abortions involve rape or incest. That means that over 980,000 unborn babies were killed because they were inconvienant.

First, war is not a necessary evil, and I certainly hope you're not refering to the war we're in now. Second, I would like to know what your source for this information is. I just like to double check things, and good studies and reports are something I respect. Now, for the 20,000 abortions that you say involve rape or incest, I think that number is worth giving those women a choice. 20,000 women, who have had to endure a brutal trauma I cannot even imagine. I cannot deny them the opportunity to avoid more suffering. Also, mothers who have a responsibility to children they already have should be given that choice. Motherless children and children of mothers who can't support them are likely to have a very poor childhood and are more likely to become criminals. So why bring them into a world of pain and suffering, why assume that they would choose that life over death? And do not use vast understatements like "inconvenient." Having an unwanted child is infinitely more problematic than your car running out of gas.

You compare two things that have no basis for comparison other than that they both result in a loss of life. The paradox you seek to create isn't rational because you are unjustifiably grouping two issues as one based on their results, i.e., loss of life.

Abortion and the death penalty absoloutely have a basis for comparison. They are both taking a human life, regardless of the circumstances. And, inevitably, because of errors and flaws in the system, the death penalty will result in the deaths of innocent people. I wonder how many murderers and rapists grew up in foster homes, or in abusive homes, or in poor neighborhoods? People are a product of their environment, and when you put more people in a bad environment, there will be more bad people.

Tell me Mdude, in your attempts to rationalize murdering the only party that is universally innocent of contributing to its existance, do you ever stop to consider the baby's choice? You seem to think you separate yourself from the pack because you differentiate between "pro-choice" and "pro-abortion." It is an insubstantial distinction you make because, to do so, you must make man's desires, whether they're contrary to God's Law or not, the definitive mark in whether something should be acceptable.

Reformationist, I would also like to know what source the numbers you cited in your post came from. As I said above, I like to check information, and will respect well done studies. All I ask for is a link or the name and author of a book, etc. Now, do not try to say that I support murder. I support the rights of people to live by their own beliefs and values. If you do not believe in abortions, don't get one! In America especially, people have freedom of religion, and I am tired of Christians trying to force their values on all of society. So called "family values" or "traditional values" are not those things at all. They are Christian values, their origins come from the bible, and when you force those values on people, you have taken away freedom of religion. Freedom of religion is protected in the first amendment of the Constitution, the supreme law of the land. And when you take away something that the Constitution promises, then everything else is up for grabs, including the second amendment (the right to bear arms).

Also, while Christians constantly present putting a child up for adoption as a good alternative to abortion, I see many of them with children of their own, and no adopted children. Maybe if Christians stepped up and started adopting more children, adoption would be a better option. Think about that!

By the way, cute baby Reformationist. Is he/she adopted?

 

[The Midge]

No I don't. There is a difference between being pro-choice and pro-abortion. I am very much against abortion, but I don't think the government should be telling people what to do with their bodies.

Why the polorisation? Why does it have to be all or nothing? There is plenty of scope for regulation to limit abortion to the more unusual and cases where there is ground for compassion and respect sanctity of life. There is also scope, in a society which believes in free speech, for opinions to be voiced by everyone. In reality the best course for society as a whole may be somewhere in between prohibition and do as you please libitarianism.

So you would rather have two children's lives be ruined. Imagine a 15 year old girl gets pregnant, and abortion is not an option. Her parents kick her out of the house, she has no money, she has to drop out of school and ends up homeless on the street. How is she going to support herself and the baby? Abortion is clearly the best option in this case.

Again there is more than one solution than abortion. In the case of the church it is to be compassionate and non-judgemental of the girl and supply free support no matter how the behaviour is regarded. What about the father who is 'guilty' of underage sex? It takes two to tango. I know there have been hideous examples of 'Refuges for fallen women' in the past but there is plentyof scope for creative caring. I don't think that abortin does not leave scares on the mother either, so it is no quick fix.

That is unrealistic. Less than 10% of people wait until marriage to have sex. Less than 10%. That means that almost all people don't wait until marriage. Abstinence is not the only way to prevent pregnancy, and there should be better education on ways to prevent disease and unwanted pregnancy. Teen pregnancy has actually gone down since sex ed has been introduced. Just telling people "don't do it" isn't going to accomplish anything.

The expereince of the UK is that the more sex education we have the higher the teen pregnancy rates. The less moral input the higher it gets. Popularity does not equal morality or the best way to live ones life.

I'm not rebelling against God. Just because I don't believe exactly as you do doesn't mean I'm evil and rebelling against God.

God does not simple provide rules and guidance to make life difficult and in order for us to be holier than thou. Biblical guidance makes sense. If you follow the does- to love, to serve, to be loyal and faithful- it leads to a stronger relationship. These are things that can not be compelled.

Conservative Christians are against things like women's rights, gay rights, separation of church and state, and the rights of those who practice other religions or none at all. They want to make their version of morality law by pushing things like constitutional gay marriage bans, overturning Roe v. Wade, taking science out of schools, and removing the separation of church and state.

Are they not entitled to try? If it is a democracy are they not at least allowed to be heard/ If they lose they have to accept the rruling of courts at legislature? You can hardly expect a Christian to vote for something they believe to be aginst Gods will, no matter how misguided that belief may be.

The definition of "liberal" is progressive.

The problem arisises when being progressive becomes idolatorous and what is good and right is rejected simply for being "old fashioned". That leads to moral reggression.

I never said ALL Christians were that way, just that the vast majority of evangelical Christians in the US were. It's not a stereotype.

Yes it is, because a majority of Christians don't come from the USA

Of course murder is wrong, but abortion is not murder. Fetuses are not human beings, they are potential human beings. There is a difference. Zygotes are not Children.

It is a matter of definitions. FYI I don't know when a fetus beomes a person. I don't by the vegiatiran slogan "meat is murder either.

Sometimes abortion is the only option that does not result in the death of both the woman and the fetus, and sometimes it is the best and only realistic option, such as in the case of rape, incest, or teen pregnancy.

I agree with most of theses cases. That does not mean abortion has to be allowed for all those other cases.

Sometimes war may be necessary, but this war in Iraq is not necessary! Iraq did not attack us. Thousands of US soldiers and innocent Iraqi civilians died in a war for oil. This war is WRONG!

I think I agree with you, that we went to war as a result of misinformation if not lies. Unfortunately we now have to see it through and pay the cost in dollars and lives.

You don't always know people's situations. Of course some of these abortions were for convenience, but most of them were not. Some of them may not have been financially able to afford to raise a child, some may have been medically unable to give birth, some of them may have decided to abort because the fetus had severe birth defects or brain damage making it impossible for it to live a normal life. There are many different reasons why women have abortions and most of them have nothing to do with convenience.

No, only God should judge that. Only God can judge the motivations of the heart and if the other reasons are cited to excuse convenience. The price we (as Christians) need to pay is in dollars and time, if the option of life is God's will. Unfortunately there is a mistaken belief that being credible is the same as being vocal and christians fail to put their money where there mouths are.

There is never only one choice. Jesus could have walked away from the cross if he had wanted to. It was his love for the Father and humanity that took him there, our welfare above his. If we could be 'progressive' and immitate this love and compassion the world would truly be a better place for all of us.

 

[Reformationist]

No I don't.

Listen ace. I'm out of my teen years so I don't feel the need to get into a "yes you do, no I don't volley." It never accomplishes anything except using up time that could be spent in better ways.

There is a difference between being pro-choice and pro-abortion.

Whatever helps you sleep at night. Tell me, aside from cases wherein the female is impregnated against her will, when else do you believe it is okay to murder the innocent party? Oh, and before you twist this, "not planning on getting pregnant" isn't "getting pregnant against her will." If someone voluntarily engages in intercourse then they must accept the responsibility that comes with the possibility of getting pregnant.

I am very much against abortion, but I don't think the government should be telling people what to do with their bodies.

I see. So, do you think the government should not be allowed to tell people they can drive under the influence of alcohol? It's should be their choice, right? After all, it's their body. You see ace, the issue isn't that the government is telling people what they are allowed to do with their body. The government should be telling people what they are allowed to do with the life of someone else. Go ahead. Rationalize away. You've got two choices here ace. You can either acknowledge that the unborn baby is a life and, therefore, you are advocating unjustifiable homocide, or, you can claim that life doesn't actually begin until birth, and then you can explain what basis you make for that determination.

So you would rather have two children's lives be ruined.

You know, if this weren't so terribly sad it would be funny. We're not talking about RUINING the baby's life. We're talking about KILLING, ENDING, MURDERING the baby. Listen, if you're going to take the "pro-choice" stance, at least have the sand to call it what it is. What I'd rather is that parents be involved in their children's lives. What I'd rather is that parents raise their children with love and compassion so that the young girls who go get abortions don't feel like that is their only option. What I'd rather is that the government spend money on facilities purposed to enable young women to realize that they have the option of keeping their child and still succeeding in life. Let me tell you something since you seem to think, at 19, you are an authority on life. My sister got pregnant at 16 years old. My parents, while not pleased, while scared, while anxious, were still supportive of her. Every time I look into the eyes of my nephew, who is my heart, I know that things could have very easily been different.

Imagine a 15 year old girl gets pregnant, and abortion is not an option. Her parents kick her out of the house, she has no money, she has to drop out of school and ends up homeless on the street. How is she going to support herself and the baby? Abortion is clearly the best option in this case.

Again I ask, best for whom ace? Is it the best option for the little LIVING baby who you are speaking of as if it is a nuisance rather than a LIVING human? I don't deny that there are parents out there that are not prepared to deal with their young child getting pregnant. I don't deny that many young women feel that they have no other option. What I deny is that this isn't murdering an innocent child. What I deny is that this issue begins with dealing with a pregnant child. You see ace, this problem began long before that. When parents are involved in their children's lives and raise them to understand the responsibilities that accompany being sexually active they are less likely to be flippant about disposing of a human life. That's not the answer ace. It's the excuse. It's sidestepping the real issue.

That is unrealistic. Less than 10% of people wait until marriage to have sex. Less than 10%.

Ooooh. I get it now. You operate under the mistaken assumption that because children are not raised to respect either themselves or the sanctity of abstitance until marriage that we should just change everything. You see, this is the problem with the modern parent. They think, "Well, they're going to do it anyway so I might as well make sure they do it safely. So, I'll provide them a safe environment to do what they shouldn't be doing. I'll provide the contraception to help them avoid getting pregnant." Sure ace. Let's be "realistic." You know, it's funny how often axioms are true. Here's one for you. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. The solution to teen pregnancy isn't advocating teen sex "just because it's unrealistic to think we can educate them to wait." The answer is helping them to understand how precious such a union is and how God always intended that it be exclusive to the married couple. The answer is education and involvement ace. The answer is discipline. The answer is not to advocate ungodly behavior just because you feel it's beyond your ability to control. You know what ace? I have three children. I'm guessing you have none. My children may grow up thinking I'm strict. They may grow up thinking I'm old fashioned. They may grow up thinking that they missed out on a lot of things their friends are involved in. They may grow up thinking I'm crazy. I'll tell you what they won't think ace. They won't think I don't love them. They will never feel like they only have one option. You can continue to differentiate between "pro-choice" and "pro-abortion" but it makes no difference to me. They are both the advocation of murder.

That means that almost all people don't wait until marriage.

So if 90% of drivers are drinking alcohol and driving then should we just say, "Hey, ace and I think it's unrealistic that we hinder them from doing this. After all, almost all people are doing it?"

Abstinence is not the only way to prevent pregnancy, and there should be better education on ways to prevent disease and unwanted pregnancy.

I never said abstinence was the only way to prevent pregnancy ace. However, you and I are going to have different beliefs on acceptable methods for unwed people to prevent getting pregnant. You advocate finding a method that gives you an acceptable level of risk while I advocate the recognition that sex should be confined to the marital union.

Teen pregnancy has actually gone down since sex ed has been introduced. Just telling people "don't do it" isn't going to accomplish anything.

I agree that just telling people "don't do it" isn't enough. I never advocated any such thing so how about you stick to arguing against what I actually say, okay?

I'm not rebelling against God.

If you endorse the right to murder babies you are.

Just because I don't believe exactly as you do doesn't mean I'm evil and rebelling against God.

LOL! Ace, I'm a reformed Christian. In case you don't know what that means, it means that I think ALL people are inherently evil until God changes their nature. No, we are not all a bunch of Hitlers or John Wayne Gacys. However, it is our inherent nature to rebel against God. Instead of assuming that I'm being self-righteous by telling you that abortion is only a necessary evil to those who wish to justify rebelling against the authority of God, you should understand that we all rebel against the authority of God and should always help each other see when we are stepping off the narrow path.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

Conservative Christians are against things like women's rights

Wrong.

gay rights

Which rights? We don't discriminate. There is no one that I'm allowed to marry, with the exception of those too closely related to you, that you are not allowed to marry.

separation of church and state

Do you know what establishmentarianism is ace? That is the purpose of separation of church and state. It's not this ridiculous lie that the liberal community seeks to impose upon the nation.

and the rights of those who practice other religions or none at all.

Get over yourself ace. What "rights" do you feel you are entitled to that "conservative Christians" are against? What ace? The right to murder a living child? The right to dishonor a union that God established? What rights of yours do conservative Christians seek to repress?

They want to make their version of morality law by pushing things like constitutional gay marriage bans

Since when was homosexual marriage a right?

overturning Roe v. Wade

The right to murder innocent children never should have been your right so Roe vs. Wade should be overturned.

taking science out of schools

Example? Tell me something ace. Do you think the school system should have the right to require your children to sit through films advocating the truth of the Gospel?

and removing the separation of church and state.

Why don't you do me the favor of explaining how you understand the constitutional support for the separation of church and state.

The definition of "liberal" is progressive.

LOL! What a self-serving "definition." Whose definition is that? Your own?

Let's look:

liberal - one who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways

progressive - one believing in moderate political change and especially social improvement by governmental action

Sure. Those are the same. I can see that you fancy yourself amongst the enlightened elite ace. If that be the case then more power to you. Unfortunately, any worldview that advocates the right to murder an innocent baby just because it's an inconvenience isn't progressive. It's savage.

I never said ALL Christians were that way, just that the vast majority of evangelical Christians in the US were. It's not a stereotype.

The vast majority, huh? Tell me, on what do you base those statements? Are we to simply take your word for it?

No, not all. The majority of the ones I've seen are, though.

Oooooh. The "one's you've seen." Well, I'm sure that's a "vast majority of Christians."

Of course murder is wrong, but abortion is not murder. Fetuses are not human beings, they are potential human beings. There is a difference. Zygotes are not Children.

Ace, what is it that makes a human being a human being?

Sometimes abortion is the only option that does not result in the death of both the woman and the fetus, and sometimes it is the best and only realistic option, such as in the case of rape, incest, or teen pregnancy.

Since you seem to have missed it, 8.2 % of the time ace. Once again, a very weak argument you present. Your "sometimes" isn't even a tenth of all abortions. Tell me, do you think that abortion should be illegal except in cases where there is danger to the mother, child, or when it is the result of rape or incest? I'm going to leave out "teen pregnancy" because that is nothing more than a load. You make the decision on what it is a load of.

Sometimes war may be necessary, but this war in Iraq is not necessary! Iraq did not attack us. Thousands of US soldiers and innocent Iraqi civilians died in a war for oil. This war is WRONG!

Thank God our soldiers value freedom. I'd hate to think the security of my life and those I love depended on someone like you.

Of course some of these abortions were for convenience, but most of them were not.

Really? He doesn't know but you do? Pray tell, where do you get this admirable insight that enables you to claim that most of those abortions were not for convenience?

There are many different reasons why women have abortions and most of them have nothing to do with convenience.

As I said, whatever helps you sleep at night ace.

 

[Reformationist]

Abortion and the death penalty absoloutely have a basis for comparison. They are both taking a human life, regardless of the circumstances.

Oh. I see. So, if someone breaks into your house to kill you or your loved ones your act of self defense which results in their death should be dealt with the same way as, say, they would have been dealt with had they been successful in murdering you? Hey, let's just "disregard the circumstances," right? Let's send you to jail. Great idea. I am amazed no one came up with that before.

And, inevitably, because of errors and flaws in the system, the death penalty will result in the deaths of innocent people.

Well, that may be true. However, I seriously doubt that the system today kills more innocent people than it releases guilty people. No man run system is perfect. Tell you what, let's consider the justice in someone murdering your mom or dad, getting a deal from the DA's office so that it would be tried as manslaughter in the 2nd degree, they are sentenced to 15 years in prison, and they get out on good behavior in 7 years, and then go back out and kill again. Tell me, was justice served against that murderer?

I wonder how many murderers and rapists grew up in foster homes, or in abusive homes, or in poor neighborhoods? People are a product of their environment, and when you put more people in a bad environment, there will be more bad people.

Liberals always want to blame society for the evils that man commits. If people are a product of their environment then why do many people rise about their meager beginnings to go on to great heights of success? Oh, they were lucky, right? Sure. Keep making excuses for them.

Reformationist, I would also like to know what source the numbers you cited in your post came from. As I said above, I like to check information, and will respect well done studies. All I ask for is a link or the name and author of a book, etc.

I looked on a number of different reputable looking websites. If you feel that you can find a reputable site that contradicts the information I provided, please feel free to share it with us.

Now, do not try to say that I support murder. I support the rights of people to live by their own beliefs and values. If you do not believe in abortions, don't get one!

Mdude, I'm not going to water it down just because you don't like hearing the reality of your view. "Pro-choice" is the advocation of murder. If you don't like the way that sounds, don't be pro-choice.

Let me ask you something. Since you support the rights of people to live by their own beliefs and values, let's say that my beliefs dictate that it is incumbent upon me to burn down the home of anyone who advocates the liberal view. Should I be allowed to act upon those beliefs Mdude? Where do my rights end?

In America especially, people have freedom of religion, and I am tired of Christians trying to force their values on all of society. So called "family values" or "traditional values" are not those things at all. They are Christian values, their origins come from the bible, and when you force those values on people, you have taken away freedom of religion. Freedom of religion is protected in the first amendment of the Constitution, the supreme law of the land. And when you take away something that the Constitution promises, then everything else is up for grabs, including the second amendment (the right to bear arms).

Should I take this to mean that you support me when I say the liberal view that my child should be taught sex education in the 4th grade, you know, because it's really important that my 10 year old know what oral sex is, that I should not claim they are forcing their views on me? Or is it only you liberals that should have freedom from having views forced on them.

Also, while Christians constantly present putting a child up for adoption as a good alternative to abortion, I see many of them with children of their own, and no adopted children. Maybe if Christians stepped up and started adopting more children, adoption would be a better option. Think about that!

Maybe if parents were more involved in raising their children properly we would be able to stem the tide at its source rather than killing babies. Think about that!!!

By the way, cute baby Reformationist. Is he/she adopted?

I pray and have confidence that the Lord God will adopt all my children into His family. Oh, is that not what you meant?

 

[Edial]

ace85 - QUESTIONS !

One problem I have with Christianity is that (at least in the USA), the vast majority of Christians are part of the Religious Right and a lot of them promote bigotry and have the view that tolerance is a bad thing. They also think that progressives (or "liberals") are evil and immoral.

This opening statement is really loaded without really saying much.

I consider myself progressive, I'm pro-tolerance, pro-peace, pro-choice, pro-equal rights, anti-war, and anti-discrimination. I also accept modern science (including evolution) and don't believe that a literal interpretation of the bible has all the answers. In other words, all of the things that Christianity is against.

Questions:
1. How can you be pro-choice (aborting medically proven live humans) and Pro-peace?
2. How can you be pro-evolution when the medical science is not holding to the evolution (all came from an ameba) as a fact but as a theory.
3. Literal interpretation of the Bible has little information on plumbing, for example.
4. How can you accept Darwin's theory of evolution (blacks are on a lower evolution scale than the whites) and still be anti-discrimination ?
5. How can you be pro-tolerance (tolerate others due to the fact that they have a right to exist) and pro-abortion (when medically proven live humans are denied that right).
6. How can you be anti-war (when war is what stops dictators abusing people) and be pro-equal rights?
7. Why do you call yourself progressive when all this is regressive?
8. And why do you blame the Christians when they are against all this?

I grew up in a Christian church where intolerance and ignorance were considered good things, and tolerance, knowledge, logic, and reason were seen as bad. One of the big things that turned me off Christianity is that what was being pushed by evangelicals as the "Christian Agenda" was so contrary to Christ's message. Jesus never said to be intolerant and ignorant and pro-war, he said to "love your neighbor as yourself" and even to "love your enemies, and do good to those who curse you." It seems like modern evangelical Christianity is so far from Christ's message, and has become synonymous with the "right wing agenda."

???
What do you mean by tolerance? Do you think that Jesus taught that sin for example, needs to be tolerated?
What do you think the Bible talks about when it says that you must do good to your enemies and love them? Do you thing it means that you should try to mend relations by doing good to your enemy or to let them destroy, rape and pillage your immediate environment?
And would you by any chance have an incorrect understanding of turning the other cheek as a means of complete submission instead of accepting an insult and/or curse withour retaliating?

And ... do you really mind if the Christians would be against all this?

Thanks,
Ed

 

[Reformationist]

I have a question for those of you who think that an unborn baby is not a living person. Why is it that our courts will convict someone of double homocide when a pregnant women is killed if the unborn baby is not alive?

 

[ace85]

Questions:
1. How can you be pro-choice (aborting medically proven live humans) and Pro-peace?

I don't believe that fetuses are human beings, and I believe that "life" begins at birth.

2. How can you be pro-evolution when the medical science is not holding to the evolution (all came from an ameba) as a fact but as a theory.
3. Literal interpretation of the Bible has little information on plumbing, for example.
4. How can you accept Darwin's theory of evolution (blacks are on a lower evolution scale than the whites) and still be anti-discrimination ?
5. How can you be pro-tolerance (tolerate others due to the fact that they have a right to exist) and pro-abortion (when medically proven live humans are denied that right).

You have no idea what evolution is. "Race" is irrelevant in evolution (we are all the human race!) and evolution does not say that we all came from an "ameba" (whatever that is.) Go to www.talkorigins.org or even visit the Creation/Evolution section on this site to learn more about biology and science.

How can you say that I am a racist? I'm African-American myself and I am very much against racism and all forms of prejudice.

6. How can you be anti-war (when war is what stops dictators abusing people) and be pro-equal rights?

There is a difference between an operation (not an all-out war) to remove an oppressive dictator, and this unjust attack on Iraq. This war in Iraq is murder. Iraq was not a threat to us or anyone else, and this unjust war was started on outright lies by the Bush administration. Don't say that we went to war to "liberate the Iraqi people," either. There is much worse violence and oppression going on in Sudan, Zimbabwe, the Congo, and North Korea. Why did Bush not attack those countries? Oh yeah, they don't have oil.

8. And why do you blame the Christians when they are against all this?

Because the far right fundamentalist Christians and their political agenda are causing so much damage to this country and this world. They are the ones who re-elected Bush and voted for discrimination in this constitution. Christians need to understand that not everyone believes in their God or that their interpretation of the bible is the source of absolute truth and absolute morality.

What do you mean by tolerance? Do you think that Jesus taught that sin for example, needs to be tolerated?

It depends on what you mean by "sin." If you mean sin as in wrong things that hurt other people and step over their rights, then no I don't think that should be tolerated.

If you mean the "horrible evils" of gay people wanting equal rights, freedom of religion, and women wanting the same rights as men, then yes I do think that those "sins" should be tolerated.

And ... do you really mind if the Christians would be against all this?

If "all this" means the things that right-wing conservative Christians are pushing right now, then yes.

 

[ace85]

double post

 

[Edial]

I don't believe that fetuses are human beings, and I believe that "life" begins at birth.

Poeple personally believe that the earth is flat. You believe that life starts at birth. It is really irrelevant what both of these personal beliefs state. It was proven that earth is oval and it was medically proven that the baby is alive while still in the belly.

You have no idea what evolution is. "Race" is irrelevant in evolution (we are all the human race!) and evolution does not say that we all came from an "ameba" (whatever that is.) Go to www.talkorigins.org or even visit the Creation/Evolution section on this site to learn more about biology and science.

Oh really? They taught us the Darwin's theory of evolution is school as a subject. That was in the Soviet Union, remember that? - the Mother of the Darwin's theory of evolution.
They specificaly taught that all came about from a one-cell organism (ameba) and that the Negros are on the lower evolution scale that the Caucasians.

How can you say that I am a racist? I'm African-American myself and I am very much against racism and all forms of prejudice.

According to the Darwin's Theory of Evolution the blacks are on the lower scale than the whites.

There is a difference between an operation (not an all-out war) to remove an oppressive dictator, and this unjust attack on Iraq. This war in Iraq is murder. Iraq was not a threat to us or anyone else, and this unjust war was started on outright lies by the Bush administration.

Did the US Senators (including MANY Democrats) also lie?

Don't say that we went to war to "liberate the Iraqi people," either.

Why not? Didn't Bush just say in his speech that Democracy will be spread throughout the world and that the dictators should be concerned?

There is much worse violence and oppression going on in Sudan, Zimbabwe, the Congo, and North Korea.

True. But that's where the circumstances led us. The Arab world. Do you expect us to ignore the circumstances and concentrate on the Sudan? It will come later.

Why did Bush not attack those countries? Oh yeah, they don't have oil.

Do you believe that Bush is pumping oil into his pockets? Why then is he pushing so strongly against the corruption in the Oil for Food Program?

Because the far right fundamentalist Christians and their political agenda are causing so much damage to this country and this world.

I am not a fundamentalist ... but WHAT damage?

They are the ones who re-elected Bush and voted for discrimination in this constitution.

What? When? I probably missed it.

Christians need to understand that not everyone believes in their God.

They understand it perfectly.

or that their interpretation of the bible is the source of absolute truth and absolute morality.

they also understand it perfectly that there can be only one interpretation of the Bible. Some Christians say that it is OK to have a gay bishop, some say "What?".
Only one interpretation should stand, correct?

It depends on what you mean by "sin." If you mean sin as in wrong things that hurt other people and step over their rights, then no I don't think that should be tolerated.

Good.

If you mean the "horrible evils" of gay people wanting equal rights, freedom of religion,

They have equal rights. They have freedom of religion, just ask Bush.

and women wanting the same rights as men

They have equal rights.

then yes I do think that those "sins" should be tolerated.

And how is it you are equating equal rights with sins?
Do you mean gay-marriage? There is nothing religious or irreligious about that. It is like an abortion, it is not a religious issue at all. Abortion presents that the baby is medicall alive while it's in the belly. Marriage is defines as a union between a man and a woman.

If "all this" means the things that right-wing conservative Christians are pushing right now, then yes.

You just need to clarify better what you mean.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[Reformationist]

True. But that's where the circumstances led us. The Arab world. Do you expect us to ignore the circumstances and concentrate on the Sudan? It will come later.

And you can bet your last dollar the liberal community will be against that as well.

God bless

 

[Edial]

And you can bet your last dollar the liberal community will be against that as well.

God bless

They will be.
The entire election process was based on the "hate Bush" platform.
It has nothing to do with reason. Slander is never based on it.

Thanks,
Ed