|
|
Post by Beulah5 on Oct 11, 2007 11:13:25 GMT -5
Just this question.. why are these the only issues that it seems many christians focus on.. Abortion and Gay marriage.. What about health care.. what about increased minimum wage... what about education for children AND adults... Because man is made in the image of God and so the holding of life in the highest esteem, its sanctity and preservation places it above and beyond all things and i am sorry bruv above education and other outreaches although those are very important factors. I dont believe that for any believer there is a choice- Man although fallen is valuable and wonderful even if he is unsaved because he was made in the image of God. The reason why the world is in the state it is in is because the enemy has slowly been eradicating the value of man untill now genocide, abortion and homosexuality have desensitized us to this fact. The word of God says that: I am the Lord and it is I who giveth life. That is a very serious issue if not the most serious-there is no option for the believer as far as i am concerned. I dont care how wonderful someone is-anyone who is not for life is an enemy of God. And i will tell Obama that when/if i meet him. In the time being a letter will do  . |
|
|
|
Post by Beulah5 on Oct 11, 2007 11:46:18 GMT -5
by Jonathan Hall Barlow
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abortion is perhaps the most highly debated social issue of our time. With more than 27 million abortions that have occurred in the period from 1973 to 1991, almost everyone has an opinion on the issue. The abortion issue has been used as a symbol of independence in the feminist movement, and has been clouded by many other issues such as rape and incest. However, in order to obtain a Biblical view of abortion, one must rake away the muck which obscures the main questions about abortion, and concentrate on the issue's essence.
The primary point of conflict in the entire abortion debate is the question of when life begins. If indeed life begins in the womb, then no one could disagree that the fetus (latin for `little one') is a human being, and is subject to the rights (God's laws concerning humanity) which befit a human being. First, the Bible establishes that God recognizes a person even before he or she is born. "Before I was born the Lord called me" (Isaiah 49:1). Exodus 21:22-23 describes a situation in which a man hits a pregnant woman and causes her to give birth prematurely. If there is "no serious injury," the man is required to pay a fine, but if there is "serious injury," either to the mother or the child, then the man is guilty of murder and subject to the penalty of death. This command, in itself, legitimizes the humanity of the unborn child, and places the child on a level equal that of the adult male who caused the miscarriage. Scriptural support abounds for the humanity of the unborn child. "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made . . . your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be" (Ps 139: 13-16). The Bible, in fact, uses the same Greek word to describe the unborn John the Baptist (Luke 1:41,44), the newborn baby Jesus (Luke 2:12,16), and the young children who were brought to Jesus for his blessing (Luke 18:15).
Perhaps the most stark Biblical revelation of the humanity of the unborn comes in Jeremiah 20, during Jeremiah's cry of woe in which he laments that he wishes he had never been born, "Cursed be the man who brought my father the news, who made him very glad, saying 'A child is born to you - a son!' . . . For he did not kill me in the womb with my mother as my grave" (Jeremiah 20:15-17).
In the aforementioned verses, and in countless other verses, the Bible does indeed establish that an unborn child is just as much a human in God's eyes as we ourselves are. This indicates that the command "Thou Shall not Murder" (Exodus 20:13) certainly applies to the unborn as well as the already born. Thus, when we read Genesis 9:6, the full realization of what it means to murder comes in to focus, "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man." Murder is an abomination in the sight of God because it is the unauthorized killing of a being made in His own image, and a blurring of the creator/creature distinction (cf. Romans 1).
Though the question of when life begins is important to many, the question more representative of today's view is "what quality of life mandates preservation?" Has the fetus gained a quality of life worthy of preservation? This is a dangerous question, indeed. For who among us, the already-born, can decide such a question? Do we apply this question to every human being? Does a fetus, or even an infant with down syndrome have a quality of life equal to that of a perfectly normal one? These questions lead only to some sort of genetic elitism, and shouldn't even be asked in good conscience. Perhaps the biggest irony encountered when examining those who wish to make abortion a social justice issue is that much of social justice is aimed at giving help and justice to those who are unable to speak and do for themselves-- the meek. Yet, from the same mouth that says we must protect the homeless, the penniless, animals and the environment comes words which speak of killing an unborn human! This contradiction must not be overlooked, lest we fail to see the cruelty, the degrading of humanity, and the violation of God's righteous decrees supported by those who hide behind the auspices of choice-advocacy.
Mother Teresa, perhaps one of the world's most renown champions of the underprivileged said in a recent address in Washington, "If we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill each other? ... Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want." Also, the logical result of the desire for "abortion-on-demand" is infanticide and euthanasia -- killing a newborn if it possesses physical or mental anomalies, and killing those for whom the living find it inconvenient to care. When human life is cheapened to the point that even the womb, a symbol of tranquility and peace, becomes a place of death; even the already-born will begin to respect each others' lives a little less.
Biblical Christianity does not just offer judgement of the issue, and then retract. Certainly there are some tough situations in which women find themselves, and the Christian community offers many outlets for aiding these women who often can't afford a child, or who don't have a very good situation in which to raise a child such as Bethany Christian Services . Adoption of these babies is perhaps the most obvious. Another alternative is for a family to provide room and board for a mother while she has her baby. The Christian view would be that a woman should never have to make the choice between her baby and herself. In fact, there is even a waiting list for people who wish to adopt children afflicted with Down's Syndrome.
Yes, the Word of God gives us a clear and understandable statement of God's consideration of the unborn child to be a human being subject to the protections of his righteous law.
|
|
|
|
Post by And Such Were Some Of You on Oct 11, 2007 11:50:51 GMT -5
EXCELLENT!
|
|
|
|
Post by keita on Oct 11, 2007 12:11:27 GMT -5
Just this question.. why are these the only issues that it seems many christians focus on.. Abortion and Gay marriage..
What about health care.. what about increased minimum wage... what about education for children AND adults... I did not mean to suggest in any way that abortion and gay rights/marriage are the ONLY issues Christians should consider when choosing a presidential candidate. That would just be myopic and foolish. But I do believe that a presidential candidate's positions on abortion and gay marriage are 2 issues which no spiritually conscious, right-minded, voting Christian should overlook or disregard when choosing a candidate. For me personally, a "wrong" position on either issue is simply a deal breaker. And I believe that any candidate who supports abortion or gay marriage, while claiming to "profess Christ" is seriously deceived, a liar, and possibly both. I also think it's particularly important to stress these sort of "plumblines", especially with African American Christians, and more especially when there is an African American candidate involved. Because Black folks, including Christians, can still, and all too readily, get what I call the "OJ blindspot". We can be so happy and excited to see "one of us", right or wrong, crazy or sane, even being present at the table, that we will easily ignore anything else but the commonality of race. But as my grandmother used to say, Some people are your color but not your kind. Some people are your kind but not your color. I think as African American Christians, we will need to become and remain very conscious of which is which, regarding Barack Obama. (And that's why I immediately questioned JB's leaping on that particular bandwagon, especially at Oprah's behest. I think there is some serious and intended manipulation of the African American voter afoot there. And I would hate to see JB get played or play herself...again.) |
|
|
|
Post by And Such Were Some Of You on Oct 11, 2007 12:13:37 GMT -5
Amen Sis Keita!
|
|
|
|
Post by giantsdodie on Oct 11, 2007 17:16:30 GMT -5
Ok cool I have time to respond...
Keita I dont believe for one second that you are that myopic or short sighted. I think you are far to intelligent to have such a limited view. My concern is that christians in general tend to focus on the issues only and not the character of the person involved.
Anyone can stand up and say they are against abortion and gay marriage. But yet they might be a rascist down to the core of their being (and unfortunately you have many people who confess Christ who have hidden stuff going on)
I also rarely hear Christians speaking about things like taxes, health care, improved wages, social security, perscription drug programs, learning centers, student grants and loans, better investment plans for middle to low income people, interest rates, better retirement plans, small business education and loans, business grants that you can ACTUALLY aquire ( not this mess where you have to be a cleft lipped, web footed Aleutian/Italian/Mongolian/Greek woman from Wyoming to qualify ) and NUMAEROUS other things that affect the quality of life for all people...
What about stuff like the tradegies in Burma and Darfur and numerous other places around the world...
These are issues I want to hear a potential candidate address..
|
|
|
|
Post by keita on Oct 11, 2007 18:06:31 GMT -5
I understood what you were saying, bro giants, and thanks for the commendation. I'm definitely not suggesting, as many Christians seem to do, that if a candidate's stated position on abortion and/or gay marriage lines up with GOD's word, then nothing else matters. As you've shown there are myriad domestic and international issues which deserve exactly the same level of scrutiny. (and your on-point description of some of those policies was hilarious to me!  ) Like you, I certainly want to hear any viable candidate speak to the wide range of issues. I'm just saying that for me, if he/she is "out of line" on the "big 2", I will not be needing to listen any further to make up my mind. Now I do have some other deal breakers as well, but I like to save time. So I tend to just use abortion and gay rights/marriage more as a way to simply "cut to the chase". Especially with those who claim to "profess Christ.  |
|
|
|
Post by krazeeboi on Oct 18, 2007 1:24:44 GMT -5
You know what? The whole thing about gay marriage has really been distorted. Look at how GWB used it to his advantage in the last election in a "the sky is falling" type of way, and we didn't even come CLOSE to seeing some sort of related windfall as far as that is concerned. The truth of the matter is that Kerry did indeed believe that marriage was for one man and one woman and that it should be left up to the states to decide. The fact of the matter is that only two candidates back same-sex marriage, and Obama is not one of them (although he favors civil unions). And he voted against the federal amendment to ban gay marriage because 1) he felt as though it was nothing more than a GWB-inspired political ploy and 2) the issue should be left up to the states. As far as abortion is concerned, of course I am anti-abortion (except in cases where the mother's life is in danger), but having read Obama's extensive position on the matter helped me to see more where he was coming from. From reading his book The Audacity of Hope, he wants to focus more on making a real impact as it regards reducing the number of abortions in this country, as well as seriously addressing those factors that often lead to abortion in the first place. And this should be a major concern for all who are on either side of the issue. Here's a relevant article by the Christian Broadcasting Network (producers of the 700 Club): www.cbn.com/CBNnews/175180.aspxI've got to take everything into consideration here. Although abortion and gay marriage are definitely major issues for me, they aren't automatic dealbreakers. Sending men and women off to die based on a lie is just as repugnant as the killing of innocent babies, but I reckon you couldn't get the "Moral Majority" to agree with that. |
|
|
|
Post by jessica on Jan 8, 2008 23:50:31 GMT -5
Im curiouse who all is voting this year??? Im curiouse to see what party is going to win the Democratic or the Republican? I heard alote of people say they think the Rebublican is going to win again....This Elections Is going to be very interesting...
|
|
|
|
Post by And Such Were Some Of You on Jan 10, 2008 12:48:44 GMT -5
I won't know if I am voting until I see who is running!
|
|
|
|
Post by krazeeboi on Jan 18, 2008 23:32:51 GMT -5
The country is sick of Republican leadership, which is why the Democrats regained control of Congress last year (or the year before, can't remember). Unless Hilary gets the Democratic nomination, I really think a Democrat will be the next president.
|
|
|
|
Post by anointed on Jan 19, 2008 10:48:31 GMT -5
Interesting perspectives
|
|
|
|
Post by kitty on Sept 25, 2008 14:25:25 GMT -5
Hey guys,
I thought this article was the best place to put this article....
This is going to be a historical bail out in which some of the some companies will walk away will billions of our hard earned dollars...
Yet these same companies do not want to be regulated by the government....
Folks this is definitely an election issue... read on and share what you think....
Kitty
|
|
|
|
Post by kitty on Sept 25, 2008 14:25:20 GMT -5
McCain, Obama Clash on Deregulation
AP
posted: 3 DAYS 16 HOURS AGOcomments: 2629filed under: Election News, Barack Obama, John McCainPrintShareText SizeAAAWASHINGTON (Sept. 21) - Sen. John McCain defended deregulation on Wall Street even as he endorsed a $700 billion bailout of financial firms in an interview broadcast Sunday.
His opponent in the presidential race, Democratic Sen. Barack Obama, said an inadequate regulatory system was partly responsible for the crisis. Both candidates were interviewed on CBS' "60 Minutes."
Latest From the TrailAFP/Getty Images500 photos US Democratic presidential candidate Illinois Senator Barack Obama speaks during a press conference at the Belleview Biltmore Resort in Clearwater, Florida, on September 24, 2008. AFP PHOTO/Emmanuel Dunand (Photo credit should read EMMANUEL DUNAND/AFP/Getty Images)(Note: Please disable your pop-up blocker)
McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, has long supported fewer regulations for businesses. But as the financial crisis on Wall Street worsens, McCain is calling for more government. Obama said McCain is late in calling for better oversight after years of supporting fewer regulations.
McCain was asked if he regretted supporting a 1999 law that removed barriers between investment banks and commercial banks that were erected in 1933, in response to the 1929 stock market crash.
"No," McCain said. "I think the deregulation was probably helpful to the growth of our economy."
In the same interview, McCain defended the Bush administration's proposed bailout of financial firms as necessary, though he acknowledged it could get expensive.
"We're going to take over these bad loans," McCain said. "And we're going to have the taxpayer help you out. But when the time comes and the economy recovers, then anything that's gained back is going to go to the taxpayers first.
"I'm not saying this isn't going to be messy. And I'm not saying it isn't going to be expensive. But we have to stop the bleeding," McCain said.
Last week, McCain called for the firing of Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Christopher Cox. In the CBS interview, which was taped Thursday, McCain said he would consider New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, a Democratic, as a replacement for Cox.
"I think he is somebody who could restore some credibility, lend some bipartisanship, to this effort," McCain said.
The administration proposal would be the biggest government intervention since the Great Depression. It would dole out huge sums of money to financial firms to purchase their holdings of bad mortgage-backed securities so that these firms can resume normal lending operations.
In a separate interview on "60 Minutes," Obama said, "There were a lot of factors involved" in the crisis. "But I think there is no doubt that if we had had a regulatory system that had kept pace with the changes in the financial system, that would have had an enormous impact in containing some of the problems that are out there."
Obama also challenged McCain's credentials on increasing government oversight.
"I think that I've got a track record of actually believing in this stuff," Obama said. "And, you know, Senator McCain, fairly recently, said, 'I'm a deregulator.'"
Obama also pointed out former Sen. Phil Gramm, one of McCain's economic advisers, was a chief sponsor of the 1999 bill that removed restrictions on investment and commercial banks. The law, which repealed the Glass-Steagall Act, was also supported by President Clinton.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.
|
|
|
|
Post by keita on Sept 25, 2008 18:01:26 GMT -5
Good "Heads Up" of a MAJOR U.S. Economic Event, sis kitty. And Also Please Read THIS. |
|
.
)
