Frank wrote: Jim used the word fetus because medically a baby in the womb can be referred to as a fetus from 8 weeks until the end. ---
I get what Jim is about, so I try not to let the conversation be redirected. As you say fetus is a medical term, but it was created by medicine men. On the other hand, if the bible is used to determine what it is inside a pregnant lady, the terms are clear and unmistakeable. Unless I missed it, there is no terminology used other than "with child." Culture likes to use dehumanizing language, and Jim seems too ok with it.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Yes! Certainly a baby is human being, so is a mother, you can't kill a mother to save a fetus, human being or not. How clear can I make that Mike of N.Y. I would oppose any law that would try to do that. ---
It doesn't get any clearer than knowing the unborn is a child, nor does it need to. btw, calling the unborn child a fetus may for some reason soothe your conscience, but it's quite as fully human as the mother. Have you ever heard of a pregnant woman as being "with fetus"? Try doing a search on "with child" vs "with fetus" in the Bible. Let me know what you come up with. Also, find the enormous data there must be that shows women dying because they chose not to have an abortion. Otherwise, your case is built on political sand.
"The speeches also provide insights into Lynch‚Äôs personality and values. She said she wept in 2008 when Obama was elected the nation‚Äôs first black president. And she hasn‚Äôt been shy about discussing her struggle to find meaning in life."
I guess this means she wept because his black half was elected. Does this mean she didn't care about his white half being elected?
A secondary note- many people have wept over his election since 2008
From the news: ‚ÄúForty-two years ago today, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in Roe v. Wade, a decision that protects a woman‚Äôs freedom to make her own choices about her body and her health, and reaffirms a fundamental American value: that government should not intrude in our most private and personal family matters,‚ÄĚ Obama wrote in an official statement.
Anyone notice the ridiculous here? The Supreme Court which made in fact the decision to intrude IS the government.
Frank. Patriarch means. Fathers rule. Which you can imagine is not popular in most feminized churches today. The patriarchal movement is men who are taking there role from there Head Christ and becoming leaders as the head of there household. Some men have bruised this movement, and let pride and sin hijack the movement. The Duggars are a great example of a patriarchal father trying to raise his children for the Glory Of God. I would not agree theologically with them on some issues, but many great attributes.
I recommend a book by Philip Lancaster. Family Man, Family Leader.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Mike of N.Y., while I take a harder view than the Rabbi in the Jerusalem Post article, the "Ask the Rabbi" piece made some good points. However, I don't think the mental condition of the mother gives a right to abortion (It could probably get worse with an abortion), If the physical life of the mother is in danger, I support abortion in that case. I don't support abortion in other cases, but I believe in the Republican bill in the cases of incest, rape, (you know the Bible has things to say about those behaviors), they are going to allow those type of abortions. It's better to point out what Republicans many who aren't even Christian, what to support and that's The Ridiculous Grace of Adoption The above an interesting story, below an organization to check out. Birthright International and perhaps some of these, e.g., Lincoln Crisis Pregnancy Center--as long as they aren't strong-arming expectant mothers. But remember, The Inadequacy of Moralism
Too many irrelevant words, Jim. Is an unborn a human being or not?
John Yurich USA wrote: --- Well I don't have any companions in the local Catholic Church I attend and I don't align myself with anybody at the local Catholic Church I attend. I don't have any friends at the local Catholic Church I attend. I am not an ordinary Catholic as I reject the majority of Catholic doctrines.
Therefore you are not a Catholic at all, John Y. You attend the RCC because of laziness and convenience. At least be honest enough to admit it.
somethingstothinkabout wrote: "Regarding 2 Peter 2:1, Dr. White writes: --- 5) The passage says the Master did not *potentially* purchase these men, but that He did, in fact, purchase these men (sovereignty, not redemption). Compare Deuteronomy 32:5-6 for parallel use in the OT. 6) Derive the extent of the atonement from Hebrews that discusses it, not from 2 Peter's reference to false teachers." --- John Gill: "1Jn 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins,.... For the sins of us who now believe, and are Jews:" "and not for ours only; but for the sins of Old Testament saints, and of those who shall hereafter believe in Christ, and of the Gentiles also, signified in the next clause: but also for the sins of the whole world..."
Deut. 32:6 "Bought" here means redeemed from Egyptian bondage according to John Gill. So it appears the parallel use of "bought" in 2 Peter 2:1, if that is what it is, is used similarly, just not the way Dr White thinks. Not all of these "bought" made it to the promised land. Why not? Likewise neither will the false prophets and teachers who deny the Lord who bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
Christopher000 from Rhode Island wrote: 1519, Apparently you are fooled, because I am who I say I am! Why do people continually refuse to see that I have meerly changed my stance on a topic, NOT had my moniker hacked!
The real Christopher can spell "merely." You can't. If you go away now, you won't look sillier than you already do.
From the news: "As Americans, we respect human dignity, even when we're threatened, which is why I've prohibited torture and worked to make sure our use of technology, like drones, is properly constrained."
Lie. Never have more drones been used, and against untried Americans as well.
"That's why we defend free speech, and advocate for political prisoners, and condemn the persecution of women, or religious minorities, or people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender."
When has he demanded release of Saeed Abedini? When has he spoken against Islamic treatment of women? When has he defended free speech? When has he defended Christians persecuted anywhere in the world?
Christopher000 wrote: We are who we align ourselves with, whether that be religion, politics, a group of friends, or whatever.
As a general principle, I would agree, Christopher. In the world of actual relationships, though, one would have to live in a cave alone to not be influenced in any way. Unless you can find perfect people with which to as align, just be discerning.
Frank wrote: Yes, and she is a frequent guest on James Robison's show. He is very pro-catholic as well and has co-authored books with RC priests and is admittedly a proponent of evangelical feminism. Lastly, Mike Huckabee actually got his public life started with James Robison. He worked for him in some capacity and is also a frequent guest on his TV shows. ---
Moore can be added, but the other two are already on the list, Frank.