Evidence for God from Science

Jac3510 wrote:

BavarianWheels wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:Anyone who voted for him has the blood of 50 million children and counting on their hands.

The same can be said of alcohol, for instance. Anyone advocating, partaking in and/or not publicly denouncing it, has the blood of all alcohol related deaths and counting on their hands.

The question remains...what makes abortion the point/subject at which you pronounce anyone that voted Obama in, a murderer?
.
.

That's just it--anyone who voted for Obama is a murderer. It is THEIR fault that children are dying. It would be one thing if they were ignorant of it, but Obama made his position clear, and when people say, "Yeah, I disagree with him there, but ya know, there are more important things," then they are as morally responsible for the death of the unborn as the doctors who crush those children's skulls.

So let's compare that to alcohol. Does alcohol kill? Of course. But is that its purpose? No. Cars kill. But is that their purpose? No. So it isn't immediately obvious that we should ban alcohol and cars, just because when used improperly they result in loss. But what about drunkenness? Now, that can kill. It's not its purpose, but there is certainly nothing positive about drunkenness. And if someone ran on a platform in which they argued that public drunkenness should be encouraged, it would be sinful to vote for them as well. But even here there is a difference, because while public drunkenness may result in death, abortion is designed to result in death. In fact, it goes further, because abortion isn't just about a woman's "right to choose;" it is about her taking away ALL rights from another by taking away the child's right to life.

If, then, anyone runs on ANY platform in which the express purpose of the platform is to take away other people's lives--to murder them--then the person who votes for them is an accomplis to murder. What sickens me in all this is that Christians claim to love God while helping to murder children. Thanks to the people on this very board who voted for Obama, the money I am making at work now is going to be taken from me and handed to an abortion clinic in a third world country so that they can murder a child. Yet these people say they love God? What does the Bible say about that?

"If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him?" 1 John 3:17. If John says the love of God is not in a person who refuses to give to the needy, how much less can the love of God be in the one who actively engages in taking away the life of the helpless? Or again:

"If anyone says, "I love God," yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen." 1 John 4:20. When we murder our children, are we loving or hating them? When we tell them that their lives are not as important as our comfort, are we loving or hating them? When we say to 50 million dead children and millions more to come that our beliefs about a war are more important than their lives, are we loving or hating them? When we give money to the people who kill them for a living, are we loving or hating them?

Clearly, in supporting abortion, we are hating these children. If these people say they love God, the Holy Spirit through John calls them a liar. And if Jesus was so concerned about children that he said it would be better to be drowned in a lake than to cause any of them to sin, how do you think He feels about the person who keeps them from living a life that is glorifying to Him by snuffing it out while still in the womb?

There are stark differences in supporting a person who supports things that are potentially harmful vs. supporting a person who supports free and clear murder.

I disagree, however I understand your passion.

When viewed simply as sin vs. sin, abortion is not the murderer, nor is Obama or anyone who voted for him. Obama is doing nothing more (or less) than God already allows, IMHO, than allowing freewill...as God does. The murderer(s) are these and THESE ONLY...the woman that chooses to abort her fetus and the person that performs the abortion in relation to sin. There is no more sin in having the opinion of pro-choice than saying alcohol is ok for moderate uses as sex is ok in moderation. ALL sex is either for pleasure or procreation. Alcohol is merely a pleasure with NO REAL advantage in partaking, nor is there a disadvantage in abstaining. Pro-Choice in itself is no more the murderer than alcohol is the murder of those that are killed/murdered as a result of drunkenness. Because pro-choice is the law of the land doesn't make all those living in this land murderers. Regardless of whether abortion is legal or not, it will still take place (at these astronomical numbers) as our society has not outlawed sex outside of marriage. The root problem of abortion is not whether it's murder or not, but on what circumstances cause the abortion. There are consequences to our actions. Having sex outside of marriage, having unprotected sex, being promiscuous and the like are the cause(s) of abortion and THESE are what should be campaigned against, not whether abortion is legal or not. Murder is already illegal...but allowed by God. What do we as Christians care if abortion is legal or not. A Pro-Life society does not eradicate abortion does it? The abortion issue has only been with us for less than 50 years! Did it miraculously begin in 1973 all of a sudden? No, in fact secular society has existed without the need of such a "law" for a few thousand years.

So again, I was with you on most all points to some degree or another until you stated that a vote for Obama was a sin. I want to know how the distinction is drawn from murder by alcohol = OK and murder by abortion = Sin? How is it that one man, essentially standing for freewill on one subject is made to carry all the murders of abortion simply because he has a pro-choice stance and another man that stands in the same EXACT position of alcohol being pro-choice and yet also leads to murder is not made to carry all the murders and killings as a result of alcohol?

The reason I'm pushing the issue is because you are coming across pretty dogmatic on the issue when there are many issues that essentially cause the same end event and you have no dogmatic stance on them. Alcohol, tobacco, yet I don't hear anyone calling any politician or voter that stands for the legality of each of these, a murderer. Probably because these same people calling pro-lifer's (here mere voters), murderers, use or have used these same substances that have killed and murdered millions around the world for centuries and yet wash their own hands in innocence of the blood that these substances have caused.

Clearly, in supporting alcohol and/or tobacco, we are hating these children of God that have died needlessly as a direct result of both being legal.

Ironic isn't it.

So where is that magic line?

Jac3510 wrote:

BavarianWheels wrote:

Cross.eyed wrote:

BavarianWheels wrote:So in regards to the nature of politics, this raises another question, that of whether a true Christian should involve himself/herself so deeply into politics. Either vote is a vote in sin as there are no honest politicians. But that's a subject for another thread.

That is true, but the same can be said of all humans-noone is perfectly honest.
The person we vote for is the person who supports the main issue(s)we support as individuals.
If both opponents don't hold support for the issue, then we should not vote for either.
If we do, we have supported a cause that is against our thinking.

No one is perfect...understood. I agree with you, however the nature of politics is to appease as many as possible while remaining neutral to all...hense the reason one cannot find one honest politician because if he supports a ban on abortion, yet supports legal alcohol...how is the line drawn between the two killers of human souls, be they born or unborn? Which life is more important and how have we come to the conclusion of this?

Cross.eyed wrote:Abortion is murder of our most defenseless who cannot speak for themselves and have no choice.
As such they are denied the same rights as you and I are afforded.

Can you or anyone tell me why one human should have a chance and another have no chance at all and no sayso about it?

Who's to say God hasn't a plan for these that have not passed through the womb as the rest of us? Who's to say they don't have salvation? Last I checked, the Bible makes no mention of the unborn or aborted fetus and their position or lack thereof. It seems to hint at or suggest an age of accountability. Maybe someone can help me with this part as I have been brought to a partial belief without really knowing about the teaching of the Bible and an age of accountability in depth.
.
.

In addition to my the comments in my previous reply, let me add in response to this: you make it sound as if this is all about preference. One person may be concerned about alcohol, another about abortion, and another about robbery. This isn't about preference. This is about FUNDAMENTAL rights. Even moral idiots can see that some things are outrageous. What would we say about a pro-slavery candidate? How would we feel about a law that would legalize child prostitution? While both of those would be morally outrageous on a fantastic level, at least in both cases the victim is ALIVE. We are talking about GOVERNMENT FUNDED MURDER.

Don't you realize that YOUR money is being used to kill children? Look at your check. Look at the withholdings. A portion of that is going to kill children. You are funding murder thanks to the people who voted for Barak. I do not know how to make this any clearer . . .

And what do you think God thinks about us not being mad about that by appealing to His sovereignty?! Can't you imagine how infurating it is to God that His own children are using His name to justify both their contribution to murder and their disinterest in doing anything about it???

In addition to the post immediately before this...I hope you're not insinuating that I'm for abortion. I'm not. I'm against calling people who voted for Obama (of which I am not) guilty of all murders that came about as a result of abortion. I've tried to make that clear and you have not wavered from that stance.

If my taxes are going towards the aborting of fetus', and my society has deemed that part of society, my "vote" against it is duely noted in God's eyes, but as long as I am part of this society, I am bound to "Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar." It is God that puts those in charge of earthly justice and government, in charge and it is Him that removes them.

So again I ask...why is the murder of a fetus more appalling than the murder of an already born and functioning person in society as a result of alcohol the end-all issue of what makes voters murderers/sinners and what doesn't?
.
.

BavarianWheels wrote:Who's to say God hasn't a plan for these that have not passed through the womb as the rest of us? Who's to say they don't have salvation? Last I checked, the Bible makes no mention of the unborn or aborted fetus and their position or lack thereof. It seems to hint at or suggest an age of accountability. Maybe someone can help me with this part as I have been brought to a partial belief without really knowing about the teaching of the Bible and an age of accountability in depth.

Bav, I am unsure of what happens to the aborted fetus... while I think it would be fair for them to have a free ticket into Heaven as it seems that they could not have possibly sinned, I am not sure if 'orginal sin' prevents that.

But if we were to assume that there is some sort of age of accountability, then it seems it would be for the greater good to kill all children before that age to ensure that they would be with God... but that doesn't seem right at all...

I voted for McCain myself for a plethora of reasons including the abortion issue.

However, I'm wondering, if it were a "sin" to vote for Obama, exactly how many children have been saved by voting Republican since 1973?

I've watched Christians elevate abortion to a single voting issue my entire adult life and tie their faith and political fortunes to one party while ignoring issues such as caring for the sick, the poor, and what have we got for it? We're taken for granted and continue to vote as a bloc despite these issues while ignoring many others.

I don't think either party deserves our carte blanche support and I think abortion is an extremely important issue but I will make my votes on an election by election basis based upon not only the party bur also the individual's characterists and a weighing and balancing of all issues and those who wish to refer to it as a "sin," should examine their own hearts and decide if they're doing all they can on the issue beside advocating voting for a party that in 36 years hasn't delivered what we've traded our support for.

The political process is important and we need to be in the process. The ultimate solution to the abortion issues however isn't and never was political. It is a heart issue and we have more power in reaching people one by one with the love of Christ to see hearts changed and on that basis see society change.

BavarianWheels wrote:So again I ask...why is the murder of a fetus more appalling than the murder of an already born and functioning person in society as a result of alcohol the end-all issue of what makes voters murderers/sinners and what doesn't?

I don't think that the killing of a fetus is more appalling than the killing of a born person... (besides the fact that the fetus is completely defenseless in the situation and its his/her mother that is wanting them dead).

However, what is appalling is:

• the numbers being killed by abortion...
• that there is very little acknowledgement that anyone is even being killed - pro-abortion/choice advocates still talk about the 'termination of a pregnancy' and 'removal of fetal tissue' without mention of 'killing of the fetus'...
• that a lot of people regard the law as a teacher, so what is legal is also moral - they don't think twice about the fact that abortion is taking a human life (many deny a human life is being taken despite clear scientific evidence) because if it were really that bad it would be illegal...
• minors can have an abortion without parents being informed or consenting, wifes can have an abortion without husbands being informed or consenting

Anyway, as Jac has already pointed out, the purpose of alcohol, tabacco and drugs is not to kill (well, depends on the drug I suppose...) it may just be an unfortunate result that can happen sometimes. However, the whole purpose of abortion is to kill.

.
.
.

PS. Alcohol can't be that bad... I mean Jesus was a wine maker and drinker He even encouraged others to drink (last supper) though did not encourage drunkeness...

Great... I get called a sinner and a murderer in one post, then get called an idiot for trying to support Intelligent Design in another...

Jac3510 wrote:You are more concerned with the Arabs hating us than for the life of 50 million children????????????? Muslims, who are going to hate us because their religion tells them too. You are more concerned with appeasing THEIR hatred than for saving the lives of MILLIONS of human beings?

Look at your words . . . "Anything is better that what McCain has to offer." ANYTHING, Gman? you really believe that peace with Islamic radicals (which won't happen anyway) is BETTER than saving the lives of our children? Do you really and honestly believe that it is better to murder babies than to offend a Muslim?

And then you ask about putting ourselves to what Israel is going through. What have the Arabs taken away from you? What have the Muslims done to you? It certainly isn't nearly as bad as anything that they've done to Israel. And let's just say that we had to live under the same terror as Israel does (and we don't, nor will we ever have to, for simple geographical reasons). If you had to choose between living under Muslim terror and the sacrifice of 50 MILLION children, which would you choose? Because your vote for Obama said that you are more interested in your own skin and your own comfort than the lives of human beings--unborn human beings.

You don't understand Muslim theology it appears... Have you ever lived in a Muslim country before? You have no clue with what you are dealing with.. Do you think the United States is just going to walk out of this war? After all the arab families that have been killed? This is not another Vietnam. To the Muslim, this is Christianity and Zionism against the Muslims. This has turned into a holy war... We should have bombed Afghanistan, got Bin Laden, then have gotten the "H" out of there... But no, we had to go the extra mile, and dominate two entire countries and used Iraqi heads for soccer practice (which literally did happen). Do you know what we've gotten into? These people are crazy... To them blowing themselves up for the sake of Islam is a way to paradise... I'm willing to bet in the next 5 years there will be another attack on the U.S.. Just wait and see... And McCain wanted us to be there for like another 50 years. I'm sorry, this type of nonsense had to be stopped... But you know what? It's really too late anyways, this war is NOT winnable.. There are many nations and many arabs that hate the U.S.. It's these crazies that I fear... I've lived with them before, and my belief is that we picked a fight with someone that will try to destroy it's opponent by any means... So if you want to start counting body bags, you better start counting them soon. They will probably start numbering more than any abortion rate ever combined... Comfort of my own skin? What about the welfare of others living in the U.S.? Where are their rights???

Jac3510 wrote:There is no greater issue than abortion for the simple reason that abortion is MURDER. Do you think for one second, one SECOND, that God approves of our decision to support a murderer because that murderer is going to make US more comfortable in whatever sense of the word you could possibly mean it? Life comes first. Comfort is a very distant second.

It was a sin to vote for Obama. It was a vote to continue and expand the murder of children. Whatever anyone's justification, that is the bottom line--a vote to continue and expand the murder of children.

I do not support abortion... Like I've said before... McCain is a flip-flopper on the abortion issue. I cannot support someone that says something one day then flips the next... Roe v Wade is still in effect.. Why is that??? By the way, I never voted for the Clintons.

Ok, call me a murderer and sinner then.. Fine.. I can do the same by calling you a murderer and sinner for voting for McCain.. If you look at his record, you will find that McCain has voted against clean energy and the environment more than 50 times since the early 1990s. Imagine that? Allowing toxins into our environment... These toxins get into our rivers, which get into our food and into our bodies and kills us... And then we wonder.. Gee, did you hear that Jan got cancer the other day? Well I wonder why.... You would have to be an .... not to get it. On top of that, he got us into an un-winnable war... A war that will probably get us all killed. I'm sorry, I don't want that on my voting record...

Canuckster1127 wrote:I voted for McCain myself for a plethora of reasons including the abortion issue.

However, I'm wondering, if it were a "sin" to vote for Obama, exactly how many children have been saved by voting Republican since 1973?

Thanks Bart... I wonder that too. Roe v Wade was never repealed by the Republicans..

BavarianWheels wrote:No one is perfect...understood. I agree with you, however the nature of politics is to appease as many as possible while remaining neutral to all...hense the reason one cannot find one honest politician because if he supports a ban on abortion, yet supports legal alcohol...how is the line drawn between the two killers of human souls, be they born or unborn? Which life is more important and how have we come to the conclusion of this?

I don't think I understand your point here, the purpose of using alcohol is to derive pleasure from the effects of it, not to kill anyone.
The purpose of abortion is to take a life.
All of life is important, especially to God.

BavarianWheels wrote:Who's to say God hasn't a plan for these that have not passed through the womb as the rest of us? Who's to say they don't have salvation? Last I checked, the Bible makes no mention of the unborn or aborted fetus and their position or lack thereof. It seems to hint at or suggest an age of accountability. Maybe someone can help me with this part as I have been brought to a partial belief without really knowing about the teaching of the Bible and an age of accountability in depth.

I too believe there is an age of accountability, but there is no hard number that I know of.
The O.T. has laws for the feeble minded with no age given.

I think they(aborted fetus') do have salvation, but that's not the point of my debate.
The fact that abortion IS murder of our most vulnerable who have no voice in the matter of their own death is the point.

When one or more persons decides to "abort" another person regardless of the victim's age, regardless of method,
we call it murder.
When we kill a fetus, we call it choice.

G, I have nothing more to say to you (meaning I'm going to let our part of the conversation go). I think I've made myself abundantly clear, and I'll be bluntly honest and tell you that all I am capable of seeing is that, BECAUSE OF YOU, children are being murdered who would not have otherwise. YOU voted for, and continue to support that vote, a man who encourages the murder of children. Forgive me if I can find no justification for that. If you finding a way to lump me in the same category makes you feel better, then fine. We've returned to the days when we drop unwanted children in the cold to freeze to death, and we've done it by getting self-proclaimed Christians to agree to it be getting them to think that their personal comfort is more important. As I've said before, that's between you and God, but their blood is on your hands. If I've judged wrong, God will deal with me (John 7:24). At this point, all I can do is leave it with Him.

Bav--your points, while I disagree, I would like to respond to later today. I think it is an important question that is certainly worthy of pursuing as it strikes at the root of how we view sin and consequences more generally. So how we answer this question here will have an impact on a lot more than just whether or not it was a sin to vote for Obama and thereby support his pro-murder policies.

With that, I have a paper to finish up today. It's my last assignment and I'm finally finished with my undergrad (THANK GOD).

God bless

Jac3510 wrote:G, I have nothing more to say to you (meaning I'm going to let our part of the conversation go). I think I've made myself abundantly clear, and I'll be bluntly honest and tell you that all I am capable of seeing is that, BECAUSE OF YOU, children are being murdered who would not have otherwise. YOU voted for, and continue to support that vote, a man who encourages the murder of children. Forgive me if I can find no justification for that. If you finding a way to lump me in the same category makes you feel better, then fine. We've returned to the days when we drop unwanted children in the cold to freeze to death, and we've done it by getting self-proclaimed Christians to agree to it be getting them to think that their personal comfort is more important. As I've said before, that's between you and God, but their blood is on your hands. If I've judged wrong, God will deal with me (John 7:24). At this point, all I can do is leave it with Him.

Bav--your points, while I disagree, I would like to respond to later today. I think it is an important question that is certainly worthy of pursuing as it strikes at the root of how we view sin and consequences more generally. So how we answer this question here will have an impact on a lot more than just whether or not it was a sin to vote for Obama and thereby support his pro-murder policies.

With that, I have a paper to finish up today. It's my last assignment and I'm finally finished with my undergrad (THANK GOD).

God bless

Jac,

I love you brother, but this is extremely harsh. Were you to put yourself under the same level of scrutiny and absolute standards that you're attacking G or anyone else who votes their conscience politically different than you, can you say that you've done everything humanly possible beyond voting to address the abotion issue? If not, perhaps there's some room for some grace both toward yourself and others in this regard without backing off from the importance of your convictions.

Matt 18:23-35 Therefore the Kingdom of Heaven is like a certain king, who wanted to reconcile accounts with his servants. When he had begun to reconcile, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents. But because he couldn't pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, with his wife, his children, and all that he had, and payment to be made. The servant therefore fell down and kneeled before him, saying, 'Lord, have patience with me, and I will repay you all!' The lord of that servant, being moved with compassion, released him, and forgave him the debt. "But that servant went out, and found one of his fellow servants, who owed him one hundred denarii, and he grabbed him, and took him by the throat, saying, 'Pay me what you owe!' "So his fellow servant fell down at his feet and begged him, saying, 'Have patience with me, and I will repay you!' He would not, but went and cast him into prison, until he should pay back that which was due. So when his fellow servants saw what was done, they were exceedingly sorry, and came and told to their lord all that was done. Then his lord called him in, and said to him, 'You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt, because you begged me. Shouldn't you also have had mercy on your fellow servant, even as I had mercy on you?' His lord was angry, and delivered him to the tormentors, until he should pay all that was due to him. So my heavenly Father will also do to you, if you don't each forgive your brother from your hearts for his misdeeds."

Just a thought.

blessings,

bart

I understand your concern, Bart, and you know I have a phenomenal amount of respect for you, but, harsh or not, what I wrote was true. I hold myself to no less standard than my own words. This is not a matter of voting one's conscience. It is a matter of legislating murder. The horrifying part is that anyone would have a stuggle of conscience over it at all.

As far as forgiveness goes, obviously, I have to forgive. I have to forgive in full recognition of the evil in front of me, not only those who crush the skulls of children with their very hands, but I have to forgive just as well those who give them the power and money to do it. But do not think that our forgiveness of the sinner means we are to be any less indignant of the sin, nor are we to be any less horrified that believers would support it.

Tell me, Bart, in light of the passage you quoted to me on forgiveness--what does the Bible say we are to do with the unrepentant brother?

I thoroughly understand emotions are high. I understand people can be offended at what appear to be "harsh" words, but Truth is Truth. Now, perhaps I am wrong. I am only human. But whatever else anyone feels about this, offended is not a valid emotion. Should an unbeliever be offended with a Christian tells them--compassionately or otherwise--that the Bible says that they will be condemned for their disbelief? One may as well be offended at the doctor who delivers a cancer diagnosis. If sin is sin, we need to call people on it, even if we need to do so more compassionately than I have. Murder is murder. Support of murder is support of murder; support of murder is hatred of the brother being murdered.

So while I sincerely appreciate your kind rebuke, I can only say the same I did before. If I have judged wrong, God will decide. If I have been too forceful in my words--if my emotions have let truth become tainted with bitterness--then for that, I apologize. But I will not and do not apologize for being offended, indignant, and horrified that those who claim the name of Jesus Christ actively support an agenda that is in favor of the free and wide murder of children.

Jac,

The passage would indicate to me that we're to go to the Father about those issues and it is He who will judge, not us.

You also avoided my question as to whether you've done all you can outside of voting on this issue. Has your passion to nail others on this issue translated to the same type of self-evaluation of all your actions? Where have you drawn the line? Do you give all you can possibly give? Do you spend every moment you can in pregnancy care centers? Does any lack in that regard translate to blood on your hands or are you perhaps more understanding with yourself on these issues than you're demonstrating here with others? (I hope you are by the way and that it would translate to a little more compassion and understanding on others and even perhaps some self-deprecation and recognition that there's more involved here than how you're reducing the issue.)

How has making that a single voting issue for you worked out? Is Roe V Wade still in effect? Have those you voted for (and we've probably voted for the same politicans or the same type anyway) made a difference when put in office and if so, at what cost in other areas? Would you be equally responsible for any blood spilled in that regard in other issues, or is it all relative to this one, admittedly, important issue?

Yes I think there is some truth in some of what you're saying. Where's the grace?

John 1:14 (New International Version)

14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only,[a] who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

What did Jesus model in his earthly ministry with regard to the local politics of his time? Were the Romans moral and ethical in their government? How did Jesus respond to the Zealots who expected a messiah who would bring political and societal reform? Did he fulfill their expectations? Did he focus elsewhere? Who did he reserve his greatest anger for?

Anyway, I have a lot of respect for you too Jac and I appreciate the response in kind. I just hope when you've backed away from this and the emotions have settled that you're happy with the tone and tenor of this conversation and that you're completely consistent with the impications that extrapolate out from the argument you've constructed and your own life performance.

Or maybe there's a better way.

Anyway, take it, or leave it. I love both you and G-man and God knows I haven't arrived yet.

blessings,

bart

Mrs K wrote:Bav, I am unsure of what happens to the aborted fetus... while I think it would be fair for them to have a free ticket into Heaven as it seems that they could not have possibly sinned, I am not sure if 'orginal sin' prevents that.

But if we were to assume that there is some sort of age of accountability, then it seems it would be for the greater good to kill all children before that age to ensure that they would be with God... but that doesn't seem right at all...

I'm unsure also and just threw out the age accountability as a possible means by which God might save the children and the unborn. I too wonder about original sin in this, but God knows His avenues. I hardly would advocate the murder of all children to "save" them. I'm sure God doesn't work that way.

Mrs K wrote:I don't think that the killing of a fetus is more appalling than the killing of a born person... (besides the fact that the fetus is completely defenseless in the situation and its his/her mother that is wanting them dead).

And the murder/killing of an innocent ("adult") person because of alcohol, is the murder of a person able to defend themselves? Most, if not all the death's caused by alcohol and the like, are a surprise! If it weren't, there wouldn't be so many deaths. Don't assume that every abortion is "because the mother wants their child dead". While I'm sure there are many that give it no thought and just do it, I'm willing to bet there is much anguish involved prior to, during, and after the deed. Utter desperation, guilt, inability to properly care for a child,...feeling cornered, having been left alone to deal, there's all kinds of reasons abortion is pondered. What are the reasons involved in murders by way of alcohol?

Some keep mentioning that abortion is murder. And that alcohol by itself is not a killer. Abortion is just a word...it is the act OF abortion that kills. Likewise, alcohol alone does not murder, but it is the abuse of it that kills. Abuse of abortion is murder, abuse of alcohol is murder. They are one in the same when abused, yet Jac3510 would have us believe that making abortion illegal would lessen "murder". Do laws against the abuse of drugs and alcohol lessen their abuse? Hardly. I'm willing to admit there are probably more abortion deaths per year than there are alcohol related deaths, does this make alcohol related deaths "OK"? If a vote for Obama leaves blood on the hands of the voter in regard to abortion murders, then likewise the vote for any politician that DOESNT oppose the use of alcohol also leaves blood on the hands of the voter. More so because there's a really high chance that the voter as well as the politician use alcohol DAILY and are both willing to tip a bartender, but throw rocks at a doctor that performs abortions. Silly...just plain silly!!

Mrs K wrote:However, what is appalling is:

• the numbers being killed by abortion...
• that there is very little acknowledgement that anyone is even being killed - pro-abortion/choice advocates still talk about the 'termination of a pregnancy' and 'removal of fetal tissue' without mention of 'killing of the fetus'...
• that a lot of people regard the law as a teacher, so what is legal is also moral - they don't think twice about the fact that abortion is taking a human life (many deny a human life is being taken despite clear scientific evidence) because if it were really that bad it would be illegal...
• minors can have an abortion without parents being informed or consenting, wifes can have an abortion without husbands being informed or consenting

• Are there not numbers on the alcohol side as well. Does the fact that the numbers weigh more on one than the other make advocating one any less of a sin...if all sin is equal and the least is as damning as the worst?
• There seems to be no acknowledgement that alcohol is the cause of many numbers of murders/killings...at least by Jac3510 because he apparently advocates its use.
• I agree...what is legal is "moral"...so it's ok to advocate the use of alcohol even though it's abuse leads to murder?
• Minors are also able to get their hands on alcohol and drugs. Kids, husbands, wives, daughters, sons, uncles, aunts...are all involved when the murder of another takes place as a result of alcohol abuse.

Mrs K wrote:Anyway, as Jac has already pointed out, the purpose of alcohol, tabacco and drugs is not to kill (well, depends on the drug I suppose...) it may just be an unfortunate result that can happen sometimes. However, the whole purpose of abortion is to kill.

Wrong! The purpose in the ABUSE of abortion is murder. In it's proper use, it saves a life while sacrificing the unborn life. The "proper" use of alcohol and drugs also save lives, and their ABUSE also kills and murders.

Mrs K wrote:PS. Alcohol can't be that bad... I mean Jesus was a wine maker and drinker He even encouraged others to drink (last supper) though did not encourage drunkeness...

I disagree. There are plenty of books out that would refute that Christ made alcoholic wine or encouraged others to drink alcohol. I'm unable to defend my belief properly, but it is my belief. I believe simply that it is contrary to what a "parent" would hand his/her child and say..."Now drink, but never drink to get drunk." Remember, alcohol is also a drug and if one likes the drug, one takes more and more of it. Anyway, look for the books and commentary.

Cross.eyed wrote:

BavarianWheels wrote:No one is perfect...understood. I agree with you, however the nature of politics is to appease as many as possible while remaining neutral to all...hense the reason one cannot find one honest politician because if he supports a ban on abortion, yet supports legal alcohol...how is the line drawn between the two killers of human souls, be they born or unborn? Which life is more important and how have we come to the conclusion of this?

I don't think I understand your point here, the purpose of using alcohol is to derive pleasure from the effects of it, not to kill anyone.
The purpose of abortion is to take a life.
All of life is important, especially to God.

Simply that all life is equal in importance. One cannot assume that just because one politician is against abortion that THAT politician is right and thus voting THAT politician is not a sin. Alcohol also takes lives and if a politician advocates alcohol being legal, then by Jac3510's philosophy, that politician has the blood of all those killed by alcohol and so anyone who votes for this politician also has the blood on their hands.

The purpose of alcohol is to derive pleasure from the effects of it? What exactly are those effects? Walk into your nearest bar and ask yourself, "What EFFECTS are we noticing here?" The purpose of abortion is not ONLY to take life. It also saves a life in certain circumstances...much like alcohol is claimed to be good for the body in "moderate" amounts. If all of life is important, what makes the taking of the unborn MORE important than the taking of the already born?

Cross.eyed wrote:I think they(aborted fetus') do have salvation, but that's not the point of my debate.
The fact that abortion IS murder of our most vulnerable who have no voice in the matter of their own death is the point.

I know God has His manner in which to deal with the unborn dead.

Murder of our most vulnerable? No choice in the matter? How many people killed/murdered by the effects of alcohol do you believe weren't vulnerable? How many were given a choice? Are you kidding me?

Jac3510 wrote:Bav--your points, while I disagree, I would like to respond to later today. I think it is an important question that is certainly worthy of pursuing as it strikes at the root of how we view sin and consequences more generally. So how we answer this question here will have an impact on a lot more than just whether or not it was a sin to vote for Obama and thereby support his pro-murder policies.

Well your dogma of the sin in voting for Obama certainly tweeked my ear. Although I didn't vote for Obama, I found myself unable to reconcile this thinking. Any president that sent our troops into war/battles/war on terror is then guilty of having a "pro-murder policy".

I look forward to your reply.
.
.

The passage would indicate to me that we're to go to the Father about those issues and it is He who will judge, not us.

We could open another thread about the meaning of that parable if you like . . .

You also avoided my question as to whether you've done all you can outside of voting on this issue. Has your passion to nail others on this issue translated to the same type of self-evaluation of all your actions? Where have you drawn the line? Do you give all you can possibly give? Do you spend every moment you can in pregnancy care centers? Does any lack in that regard translate to blood on your hands or are you perhaps more understanding with yourself on these issues than you're demonstrating here with others? (I hope you are by the way and that it would translate to a little more compassion and understanding on others and even perhaps some self-deprecation and recognition that there's more involved here than how you're reducing the issue.)

No, I didn't avoid your question. I said:

I wrote:I hold myself to no less standard than my own words. This is not a matter of voting one's conscience. It is a matter of legislating murder.

If you like, I'll expand. First off, there is a difference in actively supporting a pro-murder position and actively opposing a pro-murder position, and both of these are different from actively supporting a pro-life position. What I find so shocking is not the apathy towards the issue (although that is bad enough in itself), but rather the SUPPORT of it. It is absurd to equate non-action with pro-action.

Suppose I did NOT spend time at pregnancy centers (and by your standard, it wouldn't matter if I did or didn't, because if I don't spend every waking second there, I'm just as guilty)--is not actively opposing something the same thing as actively supporting it? No. It isn't. It's a denial of plain, common sense to say that it is. Now, I have no interest in tauting my own record of all the things I've done to actively oppose abortion and abortion policies. But if I may take a direction from Scripture, just as we are to witness to be people given every opportunity, I have no problem saying that I have opposed abortion both passively and actively at every opportunity.

But, again, your reasoning is simply wrong here. My objection is not anyone's non-support for a pro-life candidate. My objection is to people's support of a pro-abortion candidate.

How has making that a single voting issue for you worked out? Is Roe V Wade still in effect? Have those you voted for (and we've probably voted for the same politicans or the same type anyway) made a difference when put in office and if so, at what cost in other areas? Would you be equally responsible for any blood spilled in that regard in other issues, or is it all relative to this one, admittedly, important issue?

Actually, it was going along just fine until Christians who voted for Obama sold us out. We are ONE justice away from overturning Roe, and then we can start working on the state levels. It is Christians who voted for people like Clinton and now Obama that are the reason that this wasn't overturned already. But it WOULD have happened by now if people had stuck to their principles.

But what did they do? Just what you asked in this very quote. The looked at other issues and decided that they were more important. The looked at the economy or at war or at the environment or whatever else. And even if you argue that they are 100% right in their assessment of how bad those areas are, I STILL argue that they ARE worth they cost of human life. Look, I mad as all get out over Bush's spending and what that is going to do to my kid's futures, but ya know what? My children's future is not worth the lives of milions of other children and it is shameful to say any less.

Am I willing to take responsibility for those other issues? Absolutely, because I count it worth the cost. Ideally, I'd vote for the perfect candidate. In absense of that, I vote for the man who is worth it. If a candidate could overturn Roe v. Wade, but the cost would be the legalization of prostitution and by extension the destruction of families, I would say it is worth the cost. I would take that blame for the legalization of prostitution, and when people asked how I could do such a thing, I would point to millions of living children. I would say, "Because I felt like it was more important to protect their lives than to try to stop someone else from destroying their family." And on that, God would judge.

Don't tell me I'm not willing to count the cost. I am fully aware of it. Now, are those people who have supported murder and are now FORCING me to give money to abortion clinics going to count that cost? I did. I am. Are they?

Yes I think there is some truth in some of what you're saying. Where's the grace?

As I said before, if truth is tainted with bitterness, then for that, I apologize. But what exactly would "grace" be here . . . ignoring the problem? Letting people go on supporting murder without pointing to them to what God says? Where is the grace when we proclaim the Gospel to a lost world? When we affirm the Gospel, are we not at the same time affirming condemnation for those who reject it? The grace is in the offer.

Where is the grace? The grace is in the fact that repentance leads to restoration. If those who have sinned repent and I maintain their guilt, then I am at fault and will not be forgiven for my own sins, for then I have violated grace. The grace, Bart, is in the fact that I am here arguing this because I genuinely care. But for all of your indignation on behalf of the sinner, where is your indignation on behalf of the children who will die today, this very hour? I am no prophet, nor do I claim to be, but by way of analogy, is it not sad that the people killed the prophets of old when all they did was point the people back to righteousness?

14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only,[a] who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

What did Jesus model in his earthly ministry with regard to the local politics of his time? Were the Romans moral and ethical in their government? How did Jesus respond to the Zealots who expected a messiah who would bring political and societal reform? Did he fulfill their expectations? Did he focus elsewhere? Who did he reserve his greatest anger for?

What did Jesus do to the Pharisees? He called the vipers and white washed tombstones. He wasn't interested in political reform, but He did say that we are the salt of the earth. Look, I don't expect non-Christians to support life. I wish they would, because it is part of the universal, moral law. But I don't hold them to the same level I hold Christians. And that is the difference.

My horror is at the fact that people who claim to love God are the ones who are supporting this holocaust. My problem is with the same crowd that Jesus' was: the religious folk.

Anyway, I have a lot of respect for you too Jac and I appreciate the response in kind. I just hope when you've backed away from this and the emotions have settled that you're happy with the tone and tenor of this conversation and that you're completely consistent with the impications that extrapolate out from the argument you've constructed and your own life performance.

Or maybe there's a better way.

I've been rereading this conversation for nearly a week now. I'm perfectly "happy" with the tone of my responses. And I have no problem being consistent. Where I am inconsistent, what you are reading here is the standard I should be judged by. To him who knows what is right and does not do it, it is sin.

Christians need to stop tolerating blatant, unrepentant sin. Being gracious doesn't mean being tolerant. That people believe grace is easier to live under than law only shows the depth of their misunderstanding of grace. God will not be mocked. He may be a God of love, but He is a God of holiness, righteousness, and wrath. Just as His anger towards sin never sets, neither should ours.

I only beg Christians this: stop supporting evil.

Bav wrote:The purpose in the ABUSE of abortion is murder.

Tell you what. You show me one example of abortion-no-demand used in moderation that isn't murder.