Death Certificates on Abortions Proposed

[Oh Hamburgers!]

Jesus taught us as individuals to be at peace with one another. This has nothing to do with the governments. In addition, Jesus himself is going to return one day and make war with the devil and his allies, in the bloodiest battle that has ever taken place. Notice what it says in Revelation 19:11-18

11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.

13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.

15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.

17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God;

18 That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great.

Christ himself is coming back one day to set up his Kingdom in this earth, and he will do so as a conquering King. Jesus, followed by an army of saints will destroy the anti-Christ and his army in war.

When I read passages in the Bible like this, I always find it odd that people consider Islam and the Qu'ran to be so much more violent, and a threat to stability in the world, while we have equally violent passages in the Bible.

I'm sorry to go off topic, but I just thought about it as I was looking at your post a second time. Just a thing to think about

When it comes to America, and our actions in Iraq, this is how I see it. It was the will of God that Sadaam come to power for some purpose. Sadaam abused his position, and continually sinned against the Lord, by shedding innocent blood all over Iraq. Eventually, God raised up a leader named George Bush to bring an end to his bloody reign. God put it in the heart of Bush to send an army into Iraq to overthrow Sadaam. That is how I view these events.

This is probably one of the reasons we disagree on this issue, because I see it much differently no disrespect intended. I think the Iraq invasion had a specific political agenda, and the abuse of the population combined with the threat of WMDs were good enough reasons to validate war. Note: I would have felt this way regardless of who was in power at the time, republican or democrat.

and for the record, since you don't consider life of the unborn to be sacred, your remark that all life is sacred is disingenuous.

Who said I didn't consider life of the unborn to be sacred?

[nebula]

The party that promotes abortion on demand and the homosexual agenda is the party of satan, and the party that for the most part opposes these sinful agendas is the closer to God.

The reason the democratic party supports these actions is because they are believed to be humanitarian issues. They aren't supporting these actions because they are attempting to support satan, they are supporting these actions because they feel they are the right things to do.

Hamburger -

Do you believe abortion is ending the life of a soul?

The party that is "closer to God" in America today is also supporting a violent and bloody overseas millitary operation.

I'm leaving this alone because this would hijack the thread.

The party that is "closer to God" is generally viewed to be supported by the wealthy, while the "party of satan" is generally viewed to be supported by the less fortunate and the impoverished of our society.

It's called supply side-economics versus support-side economics. Or rather, "trickle down economics" vs. [sorry, I forgot the term ]. The stance of the Republican party is that of building a base for the job-creator to create more and better jobs. That way, those with less wealth can make a living for themselves rather than having to rely on government hand-outs. Even Roosevelt in his New Deal recognized the need to create jobs rather than just giving hand-outs (i.e. the Civilian Conservation Corps). Also consider this: when a business looses money, what is generally the first response to save money? (Answer: lay-off employees). The harder it is on businesses to make money, the harder it is for them to maintain jobs and stay in business. Thus, the trickle down method enables the jobs to be available. The folding-down of businesses is not good for lowering the unemployment rate, you know.

From our perspective, the Democratic party is trying to turn America into a socialist state. I don't know if that is the intent of bottom-up economics (or whatever it's term is), but it sure looks like that is what the Dems are promoting.

Who is to say which party is more "Godly" and which isn't? You can vote for who you feel is right, but to demonize one side as satan's party and one's side as the more "Godly" party is just wrong, I'm sorry.

The Bible is clear on immorality and how God views it. I am sorry you cannot see this.

[Oh Hamburgers!]

By the way Oh Hamburgers, if you believe what you say you do about our use of the military, would you agree that the best course of action would be to bring all troops home, not just in Iraq, but in Bosnia, and in all other areas of the world, put up a fence and isolate ourselves from the rest of the world? At least then, our troops wouldn't be getting killed all over the place, and they would be here on our own soil to protect us from invasion.

No, abrupt removal of the troops would be dumb. It would destabilize an already fragile Iraqi government, which would only lead to more hate against America, and more loss of life. At this point, IF (and this is a big if) we were sure that more troops would stabilize the region in order to allow us to remove troops securely and confidantly earlier in the future, I would advocate an increase in troop support.

That does not mean I originally supported the war however. As soon as we can set up a stable Iraq, I would like our troops out of there, but not beforehand.

My same stance applies to Bosnia and our other positions: as soon as those areas become stable, we should remove troop support, but not before hand.

[ted]

I cannot believe for a minute that God would accept or desire war in the world today, for ANY reason. Life is sacred, it doesn't matter how or why it is extinguished. I also find it very ironic that abortion is such a hot topic for many on this board, while the countless deaths happening today from war doesn't seem to be an issue. In fact it seems supported at times.

You are forgetting one important difference: Babies in the womb are not blowing up people, hijacking jets and flying them into buildings, killing innocents on purpose in order to scare them into rule by terror, threatening to build nuclear weapons to unleash them on America and Israel, cutting off the heads of kidnapped journalists, and perpetuating lies to whip up the masses in a frenzy of bad religious intent.

So yes, some of us feel that some of these terrorists deserve what they get and understand that they have made choices to get to the point of being in the crosshairs.

Babies who are aborted do not get to choose the path set before them. That doesn't bug you in the least?

You actually equate the blood of terrorists to the blood of aborted babies?

t.

[Oh Hamburgers!]

Then how about afterwards? Since you opposed the Iraq war, is it your position we need to stop meddling in all international affairs, including places like Bosnia? Should we pull out when we can, bring the troops home, and mind our own business from that day forward? That is what I am asking you? Also, did you support sending troops to Bosnia? If so, why?

I don't advocate millitary action unless all other options have been exhausted and it is evident conflict will break out. At that point I would advocate millitary action used in self-defense. I personally don't know much about the Bosnian conflict, so I don't feel qualified to give an opinion.

I don't consider myself a pacifist, but I think I'm pretty close when it comes to political conflict. A strong army is necessary in this day and age in order to discourage enemy attack, but I would never like to see military might to be used unless it was absolutely necessary. In the case of Iraq, I do not feel all political means had been exhausted, nor do I feel that we needed to invade Iraq in order to defend ourselves, at least not anymore than we would need to defend ourselves from other countries today. It is not our countries responsibility to "enforce" international law, that is a job for the UN.

I would be the first to admit the UN in it's current form is corrupt and garbled, but the idea behind the institution is a great one, if only we and other countries would actually treat it with respect and attempt to reform it instead of ignore it.

[Guest LadyC]

a big "if", huh? you mean history doesn't prove that adding troops help to bring stability to a floundering new government?

[Guest LadyC]

you'd approve of military action in self defense. well that's good. but the heck with all the poor innocent victims, (men, women and children) who are beaten, brutalized, raped, and slaughtered at the hands of evil dictators. they don't deserve our help, do they hamburgers? our military has no right to interfere and try to save millions of lives, do they?

also, i'd love for you to respond to ted's post. i'd like to know how you can equate the blood of unborn babies to the blood of terrorists.

spare me your baloney about how you think life is sacred no matter how or why it's extinguished, while in the NEXT BREATH you type out that you think our defense of life in the womb is much ado about nothing.

pick a side and stand on it. the wind is going to knock you right off of that narrow fence you're perched upon.

if you TRULY believe life is sacred and should be protected, that means you have to oppose abortion, and you have to desire to protect people from being murdered like dogs by terrorists and ungodly dictators.

[nebula]

Hamburger -

Do you believe abortion is ending the life of a soul?

Why does this question keep getting ignored?

I asked forrest, and he ignored it.

Now I asked Hamburgers, and he's ignoring it.

[Guest LadyC]

because they can't answer it nebula! ask them an easier question

[ted]

Then how about afterwards? Since you opposed the Iraq war, is it your position we need to stop meddling in all international affairs, including places like Bosnia? Should we pull out when we can, bring the troops home, and mind our own business from that day forward? That is what I am asking you? Also, did you support sending troops to Bosnia? If so, why?

I don't advocate millitary action unless all other options have been exhausted and it is evident conflict will break out. At that point I would advocate millitary action used in self-defense. I personally don't know much about the Bosnian conflict, so I don't feel qualified to give an opinion.

I don't consider myself a pacifist, but I think I'm pretty close when it comes to political conflict. A strong army is necessary in this day and age in order to discourage enemy attack, but I would never like to see military might to be used unless it was absolutely necessary. In the case of Iraq, I do not feel all political means had been exhausted, nor do I feel that we needed to invade Iraq in order to defend ourselves, at least not anymore than we would need to defend ourselves from other countries today. It is not our countries responsibility to "enforce" international law, that is a job for the UN.

I would be the first to admit the UN in it's current form is corrupt and garbled, but the idea behind the institution is a great one, if only we and other countries would actually treat it with respect and attempt to reform it instead of ignore it.

Fair enough, but you are forgetting yet another fact: The UN has no Army!

Yep, in order for them to enforce their measly little weak resolutions, they have to find countries which agree to go out and do the dirty work. Usually, that job falls on to the shoulders of a US-led coalition of forces, just like we saw in 2001 in Afghanistan, and then in 2003 in Iraq.

Seeing as how the UN has no Army of it's own, and we happen to foot the bill on almost every UN action, you would figure they would at least support the very vote to give us the authorization to do their dirty work, huh?

Imagine that.

But, back to the abortion issue...

t.