Yolanda wrote: Processes that determine whether there is life or not: Movement Respiration Sensitivity Growth Reproduction Excretion Nutrition One does not have to see to believe. Conception begins in the womb.
Yes, if it is in the process of development, at any stage, then it is a human. I always like to ask; when did Jesus become fully human. My answer is at the moment of conception. Mary was poor and unmarried. Should she have sought an abortion; of course not.
It is amazing that my God and Savior used the same process as all other human life.
Oh and this law still says it is okay to murder an innocent baby.
Iâ€™m sure most of us realize that the age of consent varies greatly across our world and that includes those countries we consider to be civilized, e.g. Germany, France, etc.
The below paragraph is from the internet concerning Germany as an example.
The Age of Consent in Germany is 14 years old. The age of consent is the minimum age at which an individual is considered legally old enough to consent to participation in sexual activity. Individuals aged 13 or younger in Germany are not legally able to consent to sexual activity, and such activity may result in prosecution for statutory rape or the equivalent local law.
I have always been curious about a moral law being different in various countries; especially when those countries have a biblical history.
I hope the above isnâ€™t divisive and I really hope no one thinks I am justifying this pastorâ€™s behavior in the slightest and I believe he should have been removed from office. But, the subject is interesting.
In the 1973 landmark case Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court applied this core constitutional principle of privacy and liberty to a womanâ€™s ability to terminate a pregnancy. In Roe, the Court held that the constitutional right to privacy includes a womanâ€™s right to decide whether to have an abortion. The Court made clear that as a basic right to privacy protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the womanâ€™s right is â€śfundamental,â€ť meaning that governmental attempts to interfere with the right are subject to â€śstrict scrutiny.â€ť To withstand strict scrutiny, the government must show that its law or policy is necessary to achieve a compelling interest. The law or policy must also be narrowly tailored to achieve the interest and must be the least restrictive means for doing so.
The above is from the internet of course.
IMO, saying the abortion issue is a privacy issue is lunacy. Anytime someone is given a legal choice to murder or not to murder then something is wrong with the system. SCOTUS decided this because of feminism and their Jim L. belief that a life isn't a life until it is born.
Luke 1:41 â€śAnd it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:â€ť
Nete wrote: What puzzles me is how Christians can vote for the same man as non-Christians vote for. What is it that both the righteous and the wicked see in a wicked man that both approve of? What spirit of agreement is in the trio? What do they both see in a singular person? Can it be both good and evil? What puzzles me is how Christians can vote for the same man as non-Christians vote for. What is it that both the righteous and the wicked see in a wicked man that both approve of? What spirit of agreement is in the trio? What do they both see in a singular person? Can it be both good and evil?
I voted for Trump for one reason. He ran as a conservative and because of that I knew that he would have to pander to conservatives. I thought that because of that just one little baby might be saved from being murdered. That was my only reason, but I still believe it was legitimate.
Dr. Tim wrote: What about the anti-KJV trolls, Frank? They get a pass?
Well as you know I would never say anything positive about Jim from Lincoln. He is the only one that might fit that category. But when he is presenting his argument, it is usually because something was noted previously. He doesn't initiate it like IE and JohnUK.
There is no such term as a nasb or a esv onlyist. And of course, that same thought would go for any version that exists other than the KJV. IOW, what in the world are you talking about.
But, even though you and I disagree on this, I do care whether you read the Quran. IOW, I consider you to be in fact saved. I think we should read the bibles that we are convinced are best examples of the word of God.
Pick a fight with someone who desires to argue with you. You have denied being a KJVOnlyist in the past. So what is your problem with my comment. Last one to you on this thread unless you suddenly start being respectful.
Well, letâ€™s see. You have an immoral buffoon who supposedly was led to the Lord by Paula White and you have a woman who has posed publicly in the nude both with their hands on a bible. Trump said he was proud of his wifeâ€™s modeling career and she has never repented of anything she has done; or at least we have no record of her doing that.
If anyone understands cultural Christianity and feminism, then they will understand my consternation.
I hope our KJVOnlist trolls can stick to the news article. Two unsaved people with their hands on a bible and thinking it is something spiritual.
Jim, I didnâ€™t read your link mainly because I cannot fathom one instance when I would tell a woman they have a choice to have a baby or to murder that baby. Would you tell someone who was on the street, hungry, and destitute that they can always choose to rob and steal to relieve their circumstances? What is the difference?
Now I know why 35.6% of all abortions in the U.S. are performed on Black women, however, Black women make up only about 13% of the female population.
How has the above worked out economically for black females?
The Quiet Christian wrote: Thanks, Frank. I have too often forgotten to pray for these men. It is incredibly difficult for them, yet they remain that they may minister. Most conservative chaplains don't seem to survive and depart. Most of the senior chaplains I knew were either liberals or Roman Catholics.
Sounds like you are ex military. I spent 10 1/2 years in the Army and the last thing I would have sought was a chaplain. IOW, I was unsaved and very carnal.
I personally don't see how anyone who names the name of Christ could become a chaplain and if they did, I believe they would be given a dishonorable discharge for disobeying their superiors. How could someone be with a dying soldier or any unsaved soldier and not give him the gospel of salvation? How could someone obey an order not to name the name of Christ?
I have never prayed about that situation so thanks for mentioning it!
The Quiet Christian wrote: Again, this has little to do with who is Commander-in-Chief but Congressional pressure to maintain "equality" coupled with a tendency for an anything-goes standard of what religions are acceptable. Christian chaplains lost the ability to pray in Jesus name years ago. There are Muslim, LDS, and pagan chaplains today. What difference is there between a pagan group and a humanist group? One has a physical idol, one doesn't. So this is of no surprise. It sounds like the Navy Chaplain Corps is at least being honest seeing that there are no objective standards for whom is acceptable. Unlike being at home in which we can choose whatever church we'd like to attend, deployed military are at the mercy of whomever is assigned as chaplain to conduct services. The other option is some sort of house church-style gathering or personal study.
I didn't read the article, but I agree with what you have written about military chaplains. I'm not sure how many people really know their limitations? How they can serve with any kind of conscience in that capacity is beyond me.
Most people don't know how this concept is also found with Hospice and hospital chaplains.
Our heavenly Father said to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.
Genesis 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
Regardless of what some of our social engineers teach, He has supplied us with sufficient resources to do just that. The problem isnâ€™t food and water, the problem is with feminism and men who donâ€™t want the responsibility of rearing children.
However scripture teaches that things will grow worse and worse and then the end will come. IOW, none of this has taken our Lord by surprise. Praise His holy name!
Well, as all of us know, God made them male and female and there is nothing we can do or say that will alter that.
Ephesians 6:12 â€śFor we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.â€ť
Romans 1:25 â€śWho changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.â€ť
Luke 17:28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; 29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.
Well except that this fellow was probably disrespectful to his professor, I donâ€™t know how we can say he did something wrong. If we put ourselves in his shoes, what would we have done; not speak out, speak more respectfully? To me this just shows how far discrimination goes. The subject matter that was discussed is an extremely important subject to believers and it is one of the main reasons we are seeing the destruction of the Christian faith; political correctness and loving the world. I remember once in college a professor spoke out against Christianity and I kept quiet. Who was more right, me or this fellow? IMO, he clearly was.
I donâ€™t know anything about this studentâ€™s Christian thoughts, but it appears to me that he sort of wimped out when threatened with not receiving his diploma. If his issue was with free speech, then that is also a form of political correctness.
If he is a Christian, then I believe God is pleased with what he did. If not, then God was not impressed in the slightest. For a Christian, it is better to speak out even inappropriately than to not speak out at all.
No Jim, I think what Tim was saying is it is more important to our heavenly Father what we think and say and not what a link says. I never read your links because IMO they are coming from someone who isn't saved; so why would I do that?
You plug in Christian activism when it suits you and donâ€™t when it suits you. You pretend to be independent when even a child could see through that. You are simply a liberal troll.
Even the demons believe and tremble. Knowing truth is much different than having truth.
MS wrote: To awatcher from Mo. BG was an ecumenical pied piper who stood for nothing and will be remembered by many of us as Mr. Facing Both Ways. His eternal abode is none of our business, nor should it be speculated on.
Well said! In all the negative things I have said about BG, I have never once even pondered his eternal state.
But, as you would also say, this doesn't in the slightest mean we shouldn't expose his heresy. We actually have a Christian duty to do that!
I remember once when I lived in VA and I was going to some type of Christmas service. I remember this visitor was sitting behind me and I engaged him. He said he lived near BG and that he was a follower of Graham. I simply kindly warned him to beware because the pastor often spoke against BG. This fellow gave me such a dirty looked and said if that was true, he was leaving and he left.
For sure, BG had a charisma that I can't begin to fathom. But, he was an ecumenical pied piper for sure.
Well, here is what I will say about her statement. If abortion was prosecuted as murder then my guess is she would have a disabled child. If that is true, then I think that would show her self-centered hypocrisy. She is simply trying to falsely show a sense of compassion when it is not present.
This reminds me of something that Waters said on FOX news. He said that abortion should be rare, safe and personal. If we think about it, there is no difference between this view and Hillaryâ€™s view.
Every instance when an unborn child is â€śtargetedâ€ť is murder.
The Quiet Christian said, â€śThe real issue is the parent(s) doesn't want to be bothered with the care of a disabled child.â€ť IMO, this explains this issue very clearly.