Should I feel bad for voting as democrat before but I strongly disagree with abortions and same sex marriages?how do you feell?
Join Circle of Moms
Sign up for Circle of Moms and be a part of this community! Membership is just one click away.Join Circle of Moms
Jean - posted on 11/14/2012
I strongly believe that our country has prospered because it has been founded on a Christian God and is a place where all can take refuge and be free without judgement as long as their life does not impede on Christian standards of living (murder, rape, lying, etc.). Christianity is where our country got its sense of morality from. What defines right from wrong if it is not a higher power? Humans are not blessed with an intuitive sense of right from wrong, but we are programed with a compulsion towards religion and belonging. Something cannot be wrong because a leader says it is so without it being an authoritarian government unless there is a higher power who gives us a path to morality. For this reason I cannot believe that separation of church and state is right. Historically it is not the case with our country as this country was made on Christian values and we cannot uphold those values without that religion. We have been moving towards burying our religion and being discreet about it, when this was the very reason our country was created. We were made to be a country of Christian religious freedom (of course sinners and people of other religions would be welcome as well as all are free to dwell in Christ's presence). Religious freedom is key, not just where others can't see it. I believe that there will be a time when people will move back towards religion, because ultimately it is the strength that binds a country together and allows us to make it through hard times. For now, it is a battle for religion and the freedom to express it. I cannot vote for a candidate that does not openly believe that God is present not just in the church, but in every aspect of human right. I believe it is turning your back on your faith to knowingly vote for a candidate that will work to make religion less prominent or important in this country. Whether they advocate abortion, push birth control on Catholic institutions, or work to further separate church and state. For now the conservatives are the ones who believe religion is a key to a healthy country. Being Christian wont make our country money, but it will allow for us to be moral and Christian in our ways, which led us to hundreds of years of prosperity before now. I am not about forcing others to be religious, but if they don't believe in democracy and freedom to express religion than there are hundreds of other countries where they can be happy. This is one nation created under God where all can be equal and be prosperous.
Angela - posted on 11/07/2012
Great answer Stacy - and you've hit on an important point that I ignored. Parasites are generally of a different species to their host.
I found these definitions when I Googled the meaning of parasite:
1. An organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense.
2. derogatory. A person who habitually relies on or exploits others and gives nothing in return.
I just hope that Obama can deal effectively with the human parasites described in the second definition, LOL!!
Stacy - posted on 11/06/2012
what happened to the medical terms zygote.. embryo...fetus?? I thought these terms where to describe an unborn child
This is why i do not believe myselfthat parasite is the proper "term"
an organism that lives on or in an organism of ANOTHER SPECIES known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.
a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others.
(in ancient Greece) a person who received free meals in return for amusing or impudent conversation, flattering remarks, etc.
Number 2 without giving any useful or proper return?
What about forming into a human, bringing the mother a child, giving the mother a new found love
What about the advantages of "the baby being in a human female"
In many diseases, the symptoms greatly decrease
In some cancers the risk of obtaining them are reduced
Some, not all,mothers have increased energy
from higher hormone levels the senses are increased.
I believe the (first line) terms are the best scientifically to describe my baby. I will never ever call myself or anyone else a parasite, and I do not put humans on the same level as any other mammal. I do understand where you are coming from (we all have our own opinions) but I just simply disagree on this one, and wanted you to know where I am coming from. I do respect your opinion and hope I dont offend you in anyway from my posts
I dont mean to be in anyway, just defending my side
I do also hope that whoever is going to be president will also address the important issues, better than they are now
Angela - posted on 11/06/2012
@ Stacy, scientifically (therefore biologically) the unborn young of ANY live-bearing mammal (including humans) IS a parasite. This includes myself of course, and all my children who were all wanted and are still dearly loved.
I don't agree with abortion at all but let's not allow our own moral choices and principles cloud the facts of science - even if we occasionally don't like the terms used.
Of course, the word "parasite" can also be taken to mean a term of abuse - usually for BORN human beings who tend to exist, live, prosper and thrive from the efforts, the money & materials and the time given from other, more industrious and responsible people. Some people make a career, a profession and a lifestyle out of being a parasite. We all know one or two parasites! (and I'm NOT talking about children - born or unborn - of any age in this instance!). I've been guilty of "hosting" a few parasites during my lifetime - possibly you have done so yourself.
Let's just hope that whoever the newly elected President turns out to be, that person will address the issue of parasites who leech off modern society!
Stacy - posted on 11/05/2012
just reading throught the other posts this is still off topic, but I have to say that it makes me completely SICK to know that people consider an in-utero child a PARASITE!!! My word!!!It makes me really really sad to think about it. What do you think ARY about yourself, that you were at one point a parasite? Well I may not know you or even agree with you, but I have to say you were surely not, far from it!!!
Stacy - posted on 11/05/2012
I say if you feel bad about it and you dont believe what they can make happen I wouldnt go for it. DO what makes you feel good, your vote counts. I am registeredd as an independant because I feel that we all have opinions that cant be labeled with a name. We are all different But I am voting republican because the views more suite my beliefs and I def. disagree as with you on those two issues. lol I know Im voting independant but I wouldd never vote for a democrat just because of their views like this.
Linda - posted on 11/05/2012
Angela, you have to realize that the mainstream media's goal is to re-elect Obama. Therefore, they slant every article to try to further their agenda. It's actually almost treasonous in the way they have abandoned their responsibilty to report the facts. They act as paid campaign workers for Obama! No President is going to be able to pass any significant legislation banning abortion outright for the forseeable future....and even if he did, the Supreme Court could nullify it. The real battleground for abortion these days is in the Supreme Court....and which person gets to nominate the Justices which serve there for life. We already know the kind of judges which Obama would nominate...and they are very extreme. If you want to find a more balanced approach to news, I would suggest exploring www.heritage.org.
Carla - posted on 11/03/2012
You know, I feel kinda proud that these silly children single me out as 'bad'. How do you know the devil doesn't like your testimony? When he is sending his followers to bug you, which this did, at first. But now I understand, and stand a little taller, knowing Jesus loves me, and satan's mad!
God bless, all!
Carla - posted on 11/02/2012
As someone said, this has gotten wayyy off track. Let's try to get back on topic.
I was a Democrat back in my teens and early twenties. Once I understood their platform more, I had to change my stand. There are sooo many other issues besides abortions and same sex marriages! There is literally NOTHING they profess that agrees with my beliefs.
Now, as for do I feel bad? No. I didn't understand the platform. It would be like if admired Communism--the ideal concept of Communism is nice. The reality of it? Not so much. So I changed my opinion. We all change, as our knowledge increases.
So let's not attack each other for what they believe or don't. Let's pray for each other, that Truth will be revealed.
God bless, all.
Angela - posted on 11/02/2012
Linda, I think it's quite shocking that anyone could make choices specifically designed to make a whole load of trouble for someone else. If you're in love and want to get married (whether you're gay or straight) surely you'd select the easiest route? Getting married to your chosen life partner needs to be a happy occasion! Most of us don't have a wedding that's stress-free - because that's the nature of weddings BUT to deliberately choose a venue where there's going to be questions, prohibitions, difficulties etc .... well you're not making it easy for yourself or your partner! My husband and I are each other's 2nd spouses (we've both been divorced) and I very much wanted to get married in a Church. I'm quite aware that some Churches would say "no" and some Churches might agree to it but only after a lot of searching questions. I did my homework!! I didn't want that kind of stress for myself and my fiancé!! We were regularly attending our own local parish Church (Church of England) and were a bit wary of asking our own vicar. However, when I did, he agreed to marry us and was very nice about it. His only proviso was that we'd only had ONE failed marriage each. Another couple (both divorced) from our town marrying at the same time were turned down - but they weren't regular church-goers. We only live in a very small town and I knew at the outset there were 3 Churches that would have definitely refused us. When you approach ANY issue, you don't choose the most difficult route - that's common sense!
We had a case in the UK a couple of years ago where a male gay couple were refused a room with a double bed in a small private hotel which was also the home of the couple running it. It went to Court and the hotelier couple were fined. They were backed by the Christian Institute. It was suggested by some that the gay couple had deliberately selected that hotel - which they hotly refuted. The part of the story that wasn't published is that the gay couple wanted an overnight stay in an hotel that allowed guests to bring their dog along. So obviously there were not too many hotels that fit the bill. And that's why they went to that particular hotel - because dogs were welcome and NOT because they could sniff out a potential lawsuit and hefty compensation payment. The Christian Institute, in their defence of the Christian hotelier couple, NEVER mentioned the story about the dog! The suggestion that the gay couple set the whole thing up to prove a point and get a lawsuit moving was put forward by Christian supporters of the Christian couple. Misleading evidence, even if it's only misleading because certain information has been withheld is still a form of dishonesty!
It comes down to an assumption (at least in my opinion) that no publicity is bad publicity. The gay rights issue has been well-aired, and the Christian couple's hotel has had a lot of free publicity (they have had plenty of support from Christians and several non-Christians who all agree with their stance). The Media don't really care about gay rights or religious rights, they just want a good story!
In the UK, Linda, apart from condoms which might be bought in most supermarkets etc, contraception is usually only available from a doctor or Family Planning Clinic. The morning after Pill though may be purchased from some pharmacists. But it should be remembered that all contraception from a doctor/family planning clinic is FREE - unlike the limited choice from commercial outlets.
I've gone well off-topic now!
Linda - posted on 11/01/2012
Wow, Angela, you rise very early over there across the pond! But since it is quite late here, I'll try to answer your questions as briefly as I can.
I can not be dishonest, even to avoid a lawsuit. Satan is the Father of lies. I would have no problem buying/selling a house from a gay person, anymore than I would have a problem buying a house from an unmarried couple living together. However, photographing a marriage between gays is celebrating something that I could in no way celebrate. The fact of the matter is that many of these lawsuits were sought out...the gay couple went there knowing it would be a problem, not just as an innocent inquiry. They wanted the lawsuit. And not just the photographer. The Pavilion where the gays wanted to get married on the property of the Methodist church, the farm in upstate New York where another gay couple wanted to get married, the Inn in Vermont. These are all actual lawsuits, sought out specifically for litigation by the gays in order to make a point in court.
Anyone can get contraception at the local Walmart. It is not hard to acquire here!
You are wrong about not being enough parents to adopt children. It is almost impossible to adopt an infant in this country. Very few women actually put their babies up for adoption. That is why many Americans are doing overseas adoptions now. One side effect of abortion which the abortion providers don't advertise is that it increases infertility down the road. That, along with many other factors (many women now wait longer to try to have children) is producing a very high infertility rate among couples in America these days. Furthermore, there is still a large population of sincere Christians in this country who would gladly adopt a baby, even if they were not seeking to adopt, if it would save his/her life.
The whole "back alley" abortion argument is getting so old. Legalizing abortion was suppose to make it safe in this country. However, the abortion lobby is so strong (especially with the support of the current administration), that the pro-abortion people fight any law that will make it harder/more expensive to provide abortions---even if the law is for the safety/health of the mother. They haven't been inspecting the abortion clinics and they have lowered the health standards They found unbelievable conditions in one Pennsylvania clinic, having not inspected it for over 10 years. . Many women have died. California actually just passed a bill to allow physician assistants (not doctors) to perform abortions. There are numerous cases of clinics sneaking critically ill women out the back and rushing them to hospitals because the doctor went home--sometimes they make it; sometimes they don't. It's completely unpardonable and they treat the women terribly...they are just looking to make money. They don't really care about the women at all.
Angela - posted on 11/01/2012
Linda, if any aspect of your beliefs conflicts with the Law, then you use your ingenuity to get around it without stating your real reason! Yes, I know this is dishonest - but would you rather face a lawsuit? These are your choices: (using your example of being a wedding photographer.....)
a) No, I won't cover your wedding because gay marriage is against my Christian beliefs (wait to get sued ....)
b) Sorry, I don't have a vacant slot on that day .....
c) I only cover Church weddings
d) Quote a price that is well out of their pockets!
e) I'm probably not the best person for this job as I've never worked in that building before and don't have suitable lighting equipment for those premises - however I can recommend ........ (name someone else in the same job who won't have your own moral objections).
I would go for the last one! That way you don't do a job which disagrees with your personal principles, you don't hurt anyone's feelings and you don't get sued.
But how far do we take it? Would you refuse to sell a house to a gay couple if this was your job (selling houses)? What if it was your own house and you needed a quick sale at a fair price? Would you, as a lawyer, refuse to take on the job of the paperwork etc .... for a gay couple adopting a child? Should an animal sanctuary worker refuse to let them take on the care of a dog because the dog would be going to an "immoral home"? Does a qualified gay schoolteacher who applies for a job get sifted out as a candidate because someone thinks he/she would be a bad influence on vulnerable young people? I'm trying to identify the thin end of the wedge here....
Abortion of course is a different matter. Planned Parenthood may be the biggest US abortion provider BUT it's probably the biggest provider of contraception as well. People may well want access to one without wanting or needing access to the other. Their contribution isn't just going to go to ONE single part of the parent organisation. But as a Brit, I obviously know less about it than Americans.
Make no mistake, I'm pro-life and against abortion but a great many pro-lifers ignore some very fundamental issues ....
One is the argument that unwanted children could be placed for adoption at birth instead of being aborted. This may work very well in individual cases. However, the number of children aborted every year by far exceeds the number of couples wishing to adopt. If every couple wanting to adopt was given not one but THREE babies that would otherwise be aborted, this would only save a very small minority of the total number of aborted infants. And there would still be a massive number of already born, older children waiting for parents and a new home that wouldn't be helped in this instance.
And that's when you regard aborted babies as unwanted babies. The fact is, most women who abort say it's an unwanted pregnancy rather than an unwanted baby.
Pro-lifers also make much of women who have regrets after having an abortion. Yes, these women definitely exist but try asking them what they would do if they could turn the clock back. Overwhelming the answer is "I'd have taken greater care not to have gotten pregnant in the first place and NOT "I would have given birth to my child".
Governments that pass legislation allowing free abortion, cheap abortion or subsidised abortion are attempting to free the general tax-paying public for a small fee rather than land them with greater expense for several years - a sprat to catch a mackerel - as the saying goes. But the more impoverished mother who is more likely to remain claiming state assistance for longer is also the one more likely to give birth! She is also the one whose child is more likely to be raised in a culture of expecting state aid for a lifetime (this has happened amongst certain pockets of people in the UK).
When an unplanned pregnancy arises women make their decision on whether or not to have an abortion based on what they have to lose. They might lose a career, an education, approval from family (or indeed anyone who could be "useful" to them at some future stage of their lives), they might lose their partner (especially if he didn't want to be a father). Depending on how much they value what they might have to lose by being pregnant, becoming a mother, they may choose abortion. Of course, in the fullness of time, they may well discover that their baby would not have affected their education, their career, their relationships etc ... But hindsight is a wonderful thing!
I honestly don't see how allowing more abortions, OR how tightening up on current abortion laws is help anyone really. A ban on abortions is likely to result in an increase in criminal, backstreet abortions. It's unlikely to reduce demand significantly or impact upon sexual behaviour so fewer people get pregnant with unplanned offspring.
Linda - posted on 11/01/2012
Ary, if you know anyone who is planning to have an abortion, I would GLADLY take care of that child after birth. Furthermore, I know a lot of other people who would as well. I would even venture to add that many of the moms here would do anything to save even one baby from death, even if it meant adopting them and raising them as their own.
Ary - posted on 11/01/2012
Actually, a baby is a parasite until birth. Until it can live on its own without feeding upon its mother, it does not have its own rights. The slavery comparison? Utter bullshit. Not even in the same league. My argument is that you may believe how you wish to as long as you don't infringe on another person's rights. A fetus does not have the same rights as a person that has already been born. And if you want to make it law that the fetus has the same rights, then you had better be prepared to take care of that child after birth.
Linda - posted on 11/01/2012
Wow. A lot of misinformation here. The federal government has taken numerous states to COURT because they don't want to fund Planned Parenthood, the major provider of abortion. The federal govt wants to force them to! Furthermore, Obamacare will force everyone to pay for all abortions!
Ary, if something is wrong, then it's wrong. You could use your argument to say that as long as you don't own slaves, slavery is fine. If an unborn child is a living breathing human being, and science says it is, then killing another human being who has committed no crime is murder. In our society, we usually punish murders because we hold human life valuable.
The whole same sex argument is also not just about letting two people get married. They want to take away our rights to even voice our deeply held religious beliefs. If I own a photography business, and it would make me extremely uncomfortable to film a wedding for two men, then I shouldn't be sued for refusing to do that. Yet that is exactly what is happening. It's never really been about gay marriage. It's about taking away our freedom of expression and religion.
Ary - posted on 11/01/2012
I don't get this argument. Sorry, but I don't. If you don't agree with abortions, then don't have one. If you don't agree with same sex marriage, then don't get married to a person of your own gender. It really is that simple. What other people do in their private life is none of anyone else's business. Not agreeing with someone does not give you the right to take their right to choose both family size and marriage partner. I don't agree with divorce, but I don't judge those that have had one, and I certainly don't want to make them illegal.
Anne - posted on 10/30/2012
Linda I so applaud for your stand. I mention things like this in person or facebook and I am blown out of the water with vulgarity, blasphemy, etc. I am appalled at how 'they' can scream illegal conduct when we want to educate the mom and save the baby, but they can, through freedom speech etc sway, yes convince , the mom it is just a fetus so an unwanted pregnancy is best resolved with an abortion. I think the moms should see the truth, the movie that is % minutes long of babies being murdered in and out of the womb for sake of choice. And as far as the question in topic, I changed my political affiliation when I was old enough to vote and discovered what the Democratic platfirm was. I am a Republican forever more as long as they do not promote abortions. That is my one and only issue on voting that is priority. The government can take away all that I have, just dont murder the babies.
Kimberlee - posted on 10/30/2012
Linda (again) you are wrong about federal funding being used to pay for elective abortion . That is Simply NOT true.
http://www.politifact.com/florida/statem... - "But it's not fair to say that taxpayers are paying for elective abortions. Any abortions would be paid through a separate account funded entirely through a portion of premiums paid by people who select a plan that covers abortion services, not from tax dollars. That's an important difference. Everyone who buys into a plan that covers abortion would have to pay into that abortion fund, even men. And for those with moral objections to paying a portion of their premiums for abortion services, the federal law requires that every region offer at least one alternative health plan that does not cover abortion.."
Kimberlee - posted on 10/30/2012
Linda Nasman - Minors in some states can have an abortion without parental consent because of the issues teens may have if they involved their parents. Teens are not allowed in every state to consent to abortion without permission , some states do require consent and/or permission.
Clinics do speak to girls, alone, to ask them if the pregnancy was the result of a rape and/or sexual abuse. Still the reality is that most adult women don't report rape so to expect that all teens will is not realistic.
Some public schools ( NYC is an example) even provide birth control pills and the morning after pill now.
I don't have a problem with these issues since I realize many teens have parents that are abusive , or would be willing to force their child to abort or to carry their pregnancy and these are not things that should be forced on anyone.
Angela - posted on 10/26/2012
I'm not 100% sure how parental consent works with teenagers having abortions in the UK, to be honest. The age of sexual consent is 16 but the age of adult majority is 18. I think parental consent would definitely be required if the patient was under 16 but not sure how it works between the ages of 16 and 18. It's fair to say that there are underage girls who are "pushed" into having their infants aborted by their parents. Now whilst the abortion cannot take place without parental consent when the girl is young, she still has to consent herself - obviously when parents want her to abort but the girl doesn't want this outcome herself, she can approach Pro-Life charities for help.
When the parents do not consent but the girl wants an abortion, there are Pro-Choice charities that may help. But more often in this scenario, a UK Social Worker has the power to get parental consent waived and the state will provide consent instead. This is not common however. When the teenage pregnant mother is in the care of the local authority it is more common though. The authority approaches the parents for consent as a courtesy. If they still withhold consent, then the local authority will arrange it all over their heads (if the girl is "in Care") - assuming this is what the young pregnant mother's own wishes are.
Unfortunately, for young mothers-to-be who don't want an abortion, they can very easily "pushed" by parents who DO want this. It appears that being "old enough" to have a sex life and get pregnant still isn't old enough to be aware of resources where help is available for young girls who don't want an abortion. Parents who pretty much try to force abortion as the only option on their pregnant daughters don't volunteer any information that will thwart their wishes.
But when the boot is on the other foot, the girl whose parents won't consent to abortion nearly always knows how to get an abortion legally with help from various sources. This kind of help is advertised all over the place, on notices in public toilets even.
I don't believe this is true "Choice" if there are avenues open to pregnant youngsters so they can still get an abortion without parental consent but don't know where to get help and guidance when the area of disagreement is the other way round.
Sorry, I've gone off-topic a bit.
Linda - posted on 10/24/2012
Angela, I'm sorry. I should have been more clear, especially since you are probably not aware of all the issues here in the US. The problem here is some states allow young teenage girls (under 18 or even 14) to undergo abortions without the consent of the TEEN's parent. Our laws are extremely inconsistent in this area because most schools cannot even give a child Tylenol without their parent's consent, but major surgery is ok? The other problem is that if parents are not involved, then often abusers (whether older boyfriends, or abusers in a child's own family) can take a young girl to get an abortion and so cover their crime. Many, many girls are actually forced into abortions they don't want in this way. There is simply no excuse for a parent not to be involved in such a major decision concerning their minor daughter.
Angela - posted on 10/24/2012
QUOTE: "....... more abortion without the consent of parents..."
Linda, forgive me if this is a stupid question - how can anyone abort without the consent of parents? If the mother of the unborn infant doesn't want an abortion, and has therefore not consented to it, how can they abort her? Wouldn't this give rise to malpractice actions and lawsuits?
Linda - posted on 10/16/2012
Indeed, who is the next President is extremely important. If we cannot repeal Obamacare next year, it will never be repealed....which means that every Christian who owns a business will be faced with the choice to (1) go against their conscience and offer health insurance which covers abortions (2) sell the business (3) close down the business or (4) sue the federal govt. Many have already opted for option 4. Eventually the govt will take over all health care as most Americans will lose their current insurance.
Furthermore, the next President will almost certainly appoint at least one Supreme Court Justice. This is, unfortunately, where these matters are usually decided. One more liberal judge like Sotomayer or Ginsburg, and we will see more abortion, more abortion without the consent of parents, and millions more dead babies.
The choice could not be more stark.
Angela - posted on 10/16/2012
Well I'm British but to be honest, whichever party you vote for, they're bound to have SOMETHING in their policies that doesn't sit well with you.
I still maintain the clue to reducing abortions is in education rather than social policy.
Nikkia - posted on 10/16/2012
Whether we vote Democratic or Republican a law would have to be made and approved by the government or Americans with a majority vote. Either way if abortion is still set in place to be paid for by the ppl after its all said and done then debating about who is president is pointless.
Youaintseennothingyet - posted on 10/01/2012
Tom, I'm still going to turn this website over to 4Chan because there is only 1 person who has said anything even remotely rational. If we have to ruin the experience of one good person to break down the fanaticism of 10 more it will be justified.
Youaintseennothingyet - posted on 10/01/2012
Tom, I'm still going to turn this website over to 4Chan because there is only 1 person who has said anything even remotely rational. If we have to ruin the experience of one good person to break down the fanaticism of 10 more it will be justified.
Carlasucks - posted on 10/01/2012
Wow, Angela Barker. You have to be the one smart christian that I have seen on these forums. BTW there are six of us, its not one single person. People like Carla's infinitely stupid comments were beginning to bore and sadden us enough that we were going to turn this website over to the biggest website of vitriolic hate on the internet known as 4chan and then this website would really have a "troll" problem on its hands. But alas, seeing as there is a smart individual in these forums. It would be a great injustice to do something like that. We'll leave this website alone now just for you.
Angela - posted on 10/01/2012
QUOTE (from Linda):
"Ladies, please pray for this person....."
Linda, I'm glad you said PERSON in the singular - despite several names being used, I too believe that they're all one and the same person!
SECOND QUOTE (from Linda):
"The anger and vitriol shows how lost he is!"
I honestly don't think this person is angry and vitriolic. I believe he/she is having sport with us, poking fun and amusing him/herself. I have, more often than not, found non-believers/atheists to be polite and have enjoyed many a debate in various forums - and in person. Comments can be interesting, thought-provoking and enlightening to me and probably to many others, whichever side of the argument they may take.
This person, whilst not angry and vitriolic (at least in my opinion) is definitely quite rude. He/she does not fit the usual pattern of atheists I have communicated with who state their own unbelief in any religious doctrine/faith but still recognise, support and uphold MY right to believe. This person is NOT showing courtesy.
Whilst I agree that this person needs our prayers, I don't feel it's wise to state that we'll pray for him/her. Pray by all means but to say you will do so only invites more scorn and derision. Likewise quoting the Bible. To us, as Christians, it's a sacred book and the inspired Word of God. To an unbeliever, it's just a book. Using scriptures to "prove" our beliefs doesn't work because they have no more belief in the Bible as God's sacred word than they do in Christianity itself - it just becomes what many of them term a "circular argument".
I actually feel very strongly that stating you'll pray for a person is likely to harden their hearts even more. And I'm sorry if this offends but there's something vaguely condescending and sanctimonious about declaring you'll pray for someone when they're locking horns with you in a theological argument! Yes - it's good to pray but making a point of telling them you're praying isn't so wise. As a Christian who argued with another Christian about a domestic matter (not a religious issue, simply an ordinary domestic matter) years ago I can truthfully say that when he announced "I'll pray for you ..." he sounded SO smug and annoying I nearly slapped him! I find it's the ultimate form of one-upmanship for the person who hasn't got any other original or intelligent comment to make. Pray without ceasing but don't blow a trumpet before you do so!
People who set out to disrupt online forum threads are known as "Trolls" and NOT "hackers". A troll who goes back under another identity/username is a "sock". This particular troll is using several sock identities - I'm pretty certain that they're all the same person. A hacker is something entirely different. We need to at least use the correct terminology to avoid ridicule and maintain credibility and integrity.
Trolls and socks set out to derail forum threads. The original post asks about political choices and how they impact on Christian values. No one is talking about that topic now. The troll has apparently succeeded in what he/she set out to do.
Unfortunately, we have all unwittingly aided and abetted the troll in that objective.
Carla - posted on 10/01/2012
Yes, Linda, and they can't stop the Holy Spirit speaking to them! I woke up from my nap praying for these guys. God's Word doesn't return to Him void, but also His Love doesn't return void as well. As long as His love is being prayed over them, He is working. I expect a testimony soon from one of these guys that their life has been changed by God's love. I LOVE IT!
Linda - posted on 10/01/2012
Since you're continuing to read this,
Romans 3:23 "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God"
Romans 6:23 "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Chrsit our Lord."
Romans 5:8 "But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us."
Romans 10:9,10 "if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved."
I can keep going if you're going to keep reading and posting. God promises his Word will not return void, but will accomplish his purpose. I have read the whole Bible through many times and it is not an ordinary book.
FUCKRELIGION - posted on 10/01/2012
I am so glad you cannot refute logical arguments. You have to resort to "Jesus loves you and we all need a savior" after your idiotic beliefs are absolutely torn apart when logic is applied to them.
You lose, you get nothing.
Carla - posted on 10/01/2012
Yes, Linda, pray for them all. We ALL need Jesus, and saying we don't doesn't change that fact. God is Love, and nothing anyone says changes that, either. If we are His, then we pray for those who despitefully use us, so--
Father, we, as a community, bring these poor lost ones before Your face and ask that You speak to each and every one of them. Let them see the love You have to give, and the peace and joy living for You brings. Let us see them, not as they are now, but as lost children who need a Savior. In Jesus' Name, amen.
They can scream and yell, but they cannot stop us from praying for them.
God bless, all
Linda - posted on 10/01/2012
Ladies, please pray for this person. The anger and vitriol shows how lost he is! He takes time out of his day to spew hate on a Christian board when he is perfectly free to ignore it. He thinks he is bothering us, but he is blind and cannot see. He doesn't know that one day EVERY knee will bow and EVERY tongue confess that Jesus is Lord....only for some it will be too late. Then they will remember they had their chance and blew it. The opposite of love is apathy, not hate. Perhaps God can yet reach him.
April - posted on 09/30/2012
I know it's pointless to respond to you but I'll respond once more. I'm glad you used the word "just" because if you look at God as the king and you think about worshipping other gods as commiting treason against the king that would be punishable by death. That's justice. We all deserve the same justice today. Death. But by Jesus making the ultimate sacrifice and by Gods grace He allows us life. So don't think you have some knowledge that we don't have because you are living with that same grace even if you dot accept it. I know what the bible says, the difference is that I understand what a just and loving and merciful and wrathful and jealous and never changing and good God does.
FuckFundamentalists - posted on 09/29/2012
April, you are also incredibly stupid (but hey that's the norm in a Fundamentalist forum). Go get the good book. Got it? Good. Now put that away and get out your god damn Bible. Here are a list of instructions from your high and just God commanding you to commit religious genocide, the murder people that work on the sabbath, and last (but not least) to slay the elderly, young women, and children.
The LORD then gave these further instructions to Moses: 'Tell the people of Israel to keep my Sabbath day, for the Sabbath is a sign of the covenant between me and you forever. It helps you to remember that I am the LORD, who makes you holy. Yes, keep the Sabbath day, for it is holy. Anyone who desecrates it must die; anyone who works on that day will be cut off from the community. Work six days only, but the seventh day must be a day of total rest. I repeat: Because the LORD considers it a holy day, anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death.' (Exodus 31:12-15 NLT)
If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)
"Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple." So they began by killing the seventy leaders. "Defile the Temple!" the LORD commanded. "Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!" So they went throughout the city and did as they were told." (Ezekiel 9:5-7 NLT)
There are many more horrendous things that the bible commands you to do (turning your daughters into sex slaves, raping the wives of your enemies, burning women alive, ect,) Also don't feed me your packaged fundamentalist horseshit about how that evil is only in the old testament and those laws are now defunct because almost all of the christian culture stems from the old testament and the majority of the teachings in the old testament are still followed by the faithful (creationism bullshit,, anti-science bullshit, anti-gay bullshit, anti-women bullshit, anti-secular bullshit, ect).
Now if you really believe that any perfect and just being would work in such inefficient and cruel ways as the god in the bible, then you are a truly delusional and incredibly irrational. If you think the commands in the Bible are all moral, you are a horrible person. If you think history supports the Bible, you are incredibly ignorant. If you can look at all the contradictions and badly written stories in the Bible and come to the conclusion that it is a perfect work of text, you are incredibly stupid.
So there, I am clearly more of an expert on the Bible than you are. I strongly encourage people to read the Bible, because nothing will turn you into an atheist faster than reading the God Damn bible.
"Then quit spewing stupidity all over our boards" I literally laughed out loud at this.
Elizabeth - posted on 09/29/2012
It is not about the donkey or the elephant...it is about the Lamb. We must vote our morals not a ticket. Please vote for Godly men and women in all offices, local and national. Our vote does count. Judges are in for a lifetime and we have seen ungodly judges change how laws are interpreted to support liberal agendas of abortion, same sex marriage, and so on. Right to life, traditional marriage, religious freedom, public prayer, and ethics and morality are important issues for our families and our future. There are 60 million Christians in America and only 30 million are registered to vote. Could you imagine the impact if these 30 million Christians would register and vote from a Biblical view?
As far as how you voted in the past, I'm not sure if you are feeling bad or wondering if you should feel bad? Either way it is in the past. It is what you do now. I pray that you have the courage and conviction to vote based upon what God says about the issues.
2 Chronicles 7:14 If My people, who are called by My name, will humble themselves and pray and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
April - posted on 09/29/2012
Wow I love when people go to such lengths to insult someone and then their facts are so wrong. But that's fine. You clearly have no interest in learning anything about the bible or who God is. Obviously your heart isn't ready to be changed so why don't you quit wasting your time because your insults don't bother is, your poor knowledge of biblical history is laughable and youre not going to change anyone's mind here. Good luck. I hope one day your anger and hate towards the God who gives you life goes away. But only He can change your heart. Until
Then quit spewing stupidity all over our boards
Carla - posted on 09/29/2012
The more you hack onto Christian communities trying to 'enlighten' us on the atheist theories, the more we will pray for you. God is Love. It's obvious from your postings that whoever you serve isn't.
Thereisnogod - posted on 09/28/2012
Yes, please vote democrat. We republicans need to purge the fundamentalist idiots that have hijacked our party. Actually don't vote, people that believe the earth is 6000 years old shouldn't be influencing our government in any way, shape, or form.
April - posted on 09/22/2012
I didn't read the posts- but I believe that we as Christians have awful choices on both sides. You've gotta look at what the candidate does and not what he says bc they both say what serves them best and not what they believe. That is why I will be writing in Ron Paul bc we do need to vote our conscience and not party lines.
Linda - posted on 09/19/2012
Katie, it is not elected officials which decide court cases, but judges who have the position for life. A judge doesn't always rule the way they are expected to. Furthermore, there are often political battles these days over the nominations. Case in point, Judge Bork, nominated by Reagan in the '80's. The Democratic congress unfairly criticized him because he was against abortion, made scurrilous accusations, and "borked" him. Instead of a reliable justice, we ended up with Anthony Kennedy.
As far as PRESIDENTS go, all the Democratic presidential candidates since Carter have been for abortion; all the Republican candidates have been against it. Each Republican president institutes the "Mexico City" proclamation, making it illegal for US tax dollars to be used for abortions overseas; each Democratic president has over-ruled this policy.
A further point is that "republican" does not always mean "conservative". While the Republican platform has been pro-life at least since Reagan, the Democratic platform has been pro-abortion at least as long. However, this does not mean that all Republicans are pro-life or that all Democrats are pro-abortion--just that most of them are. You still need to do your homework before each election.
Katie - posted on 09/19/2012
In 1972 or 1973 when roe verses wade first went supreme court there 6 republicans and 3 democrats on the bench. 5 of the 6 republicans voted to make abortion legal. 2 of the 3 democrats also voted yes. When it went back in 1993 to be re voted on there were 8 republicans and one democrat on the bench and the democrat voted to get rid of abortion and yet enough republicans voted yes that abortion stayed legal. Republicans have had the majority vote in the supreme court for about 40 years and yet abortion stays legal. So the republican party claims to be pro life when running for president, but their actions say other wise.
Angela - posted on 09/14/2012
Mike, Adam & Eve ate the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good & Evil and were immediately aware that they'd done wrong in eating it! So they hid themselves and also made clothing from fig leaves - not so much because they were ashamed or embarrassed to be naked, but to try & disguise themselves in their shame that they'd gone against God's instructions! As if any of us could hide from God!! But what they did, I suppose, was an early form of camouflage, hiding amongst trees and bushes and wearing a few leaves to try & ensure they were adequately concealed!
In your response, you also discussed "original sin" - not really a concept that most mainstream Christians ponder over. All have sinned and fell short of the glory of God, without God's saving grace through His Son shedding His blood on the cross, every Christian would be answerable for his/her OWN sins - and for ALL of us, these are plenty enough sins without adding Adam's sins!!
I agree that the Chinese situation with their harsh ruling on family size is dire. The issue with "abortion choice" in other countries where couples are NOT restricted on the size of their families is that abortion is so widespread that individuals and groups are accepting of abortion. It has become the "norm". Couples who are entirely careless about conceiving children they may not have planned for, just relax in the knowledge that they can get an abortion and all will be OK. Every abortion means a life is lost - whether the abortion takes place in very early pregnancy or later down the line. The ramifications are that, occasionally a mother's life is lost as well, or her health damaged - I admit that these instances are very rare but more common are the aborted mothers who at some later stage have regret, depression and even heartbreak. Abortion DOES hurt women as well as killing infants. it also devalues the professions of medicine, surgery and nursing. Even pro-choice advocates admit that it would be better if abortion wasn't "needed".
Education and support BEFORE a woman gets pregnant will effectively reduce abortions. Tightening up the availability of abortion via government action, legislation etc .... means a few more lives are saved.
I admit that it's an emotive topic and I also admit I know very little about US politics (I'm British) but many Christian (and also other groups) continue to protest and object to abortion globally. I'll also admit that personally, I have never had an abortion but I've been fortunate enough never to have been pregnant in difficult circumstances where I might possibly have considered abortion. I appreciate that other people have different situations and it's not my place to judge them. I'm opposed to abortion though and strongly feel that educating people before pregnancy occurs is the way forward to bring the number of abortions down.
Remember that there are lots of things in health and in life itself that we don't get a "choice" over. Those that want reproductive choice, might consider "choosing" not to get pregnant in the first place.