The Absolute Power of Christianity!

You certainly hit on one thing I didnt notice before. The largest complaint you hear from liberals is that christians should keep it inside the 4 walls of the church. They dont want it following them out in the public square or in the court room or class room or TV or.....

Absolutely wrong Jake. This liberal and millions like me could give a rat's arse about the TV. There is this thing called a remote I use to click it off. The same remote "Christians" could use to turn off what they don't want to hear.

KEEP IT OUT OF THE GOV'T. AL DAVISON SAID IT BEST. AIN'T MUCH OF A RELIGION IF ONE HAS TO FORCE IT SOMEONE.

Jesus summed it up when he said to keep it in the closet.

Your faith must be awfully low if the government has to take care of it for you.

Originally posted by madmanacrosswater

You certainly hit on one thing I didnt notice before. The largest complaint you hear from liberals is that christians should keep it inside the 4 walls of the church. They dont want it following them out in the public square or in the court room or class room or TV or.....

Absolutely wrong Jake. This liberal and millions like me could give a rat's arse about the TV. There is this thing called a remote I use to click it off. The same remote "Christians" could use to turn off what they don't want to hear.

KEEP IT OUT OF THE GOV'T. AL DAVISON SAID IT BEST. AIN'T MUCH OF A RELIGION IF ONE HAS TO FORCE IT SOMEONE.

Jesus summed it up when he said to keep it in the closet.

Your faith must be awfully low if the government has to take care of it for you.

Okay, about keeping our religion in the closet. Frankly, the Bible says no such thing. Allow me to add this.

Matt. 6-5:

"And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, they have their reward."

Matt. 6-6:

"But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret, will reward thee openly."

Okay, this not only MAKES SENSE, it's also a slam against Televangelists.

HOWEVER, it doesn't mean we should keep our religion in a closet or keep Jesus's message hidden. It simply means you shouldn't separate the "Good" from the "Bad " by who you see screaming in Church or wailing on the street corners, (or in our case, television) as opposed to the general population, who, whether they admit it or not, pray alone, in secret.

But YES, you can be a good Christian and not scream "Praise Jay-sus!" in everyone's face that passes by.

[edit on 12-8-2005 by Toelint]

[edit on 12-8-2005 by Toelint]

Originally posted by madmanacrosswater
KEEP IT OUT OF THE GOV'T. AL DAVISON SAID IT BEST. AIN'T MUCH OF A RELIGION IF ONE HAS TO FORCE IT SOMEONE.

Exactly. You know it's amazing to me I made it through nearly two straight decades attending a southern fundamentalist church, two faith-based private schools (plus a public one) and a 4 year degree in Philosophy & Religion studies (before going on for something useful) without ever hearing what a lilting flower my former faith was that it required the US government to support it or it would surely die on the vine.

I can honestly say I never heard anyone claim this to be a (proper name) "Christian Nation," or that there was a war on Christianity, or it was my job take "back" the government or take over education or legislate my morality ever until sometime in the mid-90's when I got on the Internet and realized some hysterical freaks had taken over the discourse and replaced Christianity with the Republican Party.

Cue announcer: We've secretly replaced RANT's regular faith with war mongering capitalist pigs, let's watch the results...

Well, is it pretty?

I mean the premise of this very thread absolutely astounds ME!

Valley Girl Dominionism: Christianity is so *awesome* that non-Christians are just scared to let us take over the government. And that prooooooooooooooves we're right, and should get to... Uh huh.

And sadly, this Internet virus of Christian Dominionist revisionism has spread exponentially to offline in the past 10 years. I mean there wasn't a war before, but you've certainly got one now. I'm a willing recruit to stamp this idiocy out. Sign me up! I'll lead the charge. I haven't had a decent cup of coffee in ten years and I'm pissed off.

Matt. 6-6:

"But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret, will reward thee openly."

Exactly my point. Jesus was trying to instruct that the father doesn't give horse hockey about what one man proclaims to another about faith. That is an individual relationship between GOD and the individual-just the way it should be.

Yes, Jesus's teachings really do slam the televangelists of today. What is amazing to this individual is that they don't see the connection.

I am a lover of GOD and Christ just as they love me. No one needs to tell me what and how to believe. Jesus told me and I try hard to live by his words.

Jesus spoke of tolerance and understanding. The dogmatics that are trying to take over this country of ours are way, way off base. What is increasingly terrible to me is how many listen to them and their preaching like they were listening to GOD.

I go to the highest hill, the flowing creek or river, under the stars to speak to GOD. I try to have my actions reflect that also.

Yes, you are correct. Most do pray secretly. However, most will freely admit it. That is a good thing.

I personally am tired of being called a non believer because of my political affiliation. Millions like myself are in that boat. The term "secular" is often tossed around. The word is used completely out of context. The definition of "secular" is free thinking. GOD likes free thinkers for they are free from the teachings of man that push a narrow doctrine of intolerance.

So while the televangelists raise the "call to arms for the truth" we sit and watch. For how much longer? Until GOD tells us to move. See, we follow he doctine of "The meek shall inherit the earth." However, GOD is beginning to fire us up. One will know when it is time for the real fight over GOD, and the ones who push a terrible agenda will run. They will also be surprised when judgement day comes.

I haven't had a decent cup of coffee in ten years and I'm pissed off.

Just don't go to Starbucks. You'll be more pissed off when you pay the bill.

Originally posted by spamandham
It's neither. You can't have a relationship with an imaginary friend,

Call Him imaginary all you like, it doesn't make it so.

Originally posted by spamandham
nor can said friend be your master.

What do you call a master that you love and loves you?

Originally posted by spamandham
Ultimately, you are just talking to yourself, deluded into thinking there's more to it to that

Yessir Mr. Judge sir! Case closed? Hardly.

Originally posted by spamandham
because a collection of old books says so.

Do I have to say it again? *sigh* Okay, again again I did not find a collection of old books. I found God, who pointed out the collection of books to me. A collection of books by the way I was unable to read.
I'd get very angry and violent over the topic of God before then.

Originally posted by spamandham
Yet you claim to be forgiven, and you continue to "screw him over" (sin), do you not?

I do. I'll stand accused, though there is no longer the intention to do so and the means to learn and change.

Originally posted by spamandham
The whole sacrifice business is superfluous. You could be justified by faith and forgiven even without it, and you could be justified by grace if god wanted. Even more, he could simply quit making people with a "sin nature". Repeating the party line is not going to convince me that any of it makes any sense. It didn't even make sense when I was a Christian, but I didn't require it to make sense back then.

They're His rules, not mine.

Originally posted by spamandham
Why is this a bad idea? I thought god was self sufficient. What difference does it make to him if we put ourselves before him? For god to have any needs or wants whatsoever implies he is not self sufficient. If he made creation to share his glory with others, then it should not matter to him whether that creation appreciates what he did, or loves him in return, or worships him.

But you see, love does matter.

Originally posted by spamandham
I don't have a beef with fictional entities, I have a beef with the authoritarian theocratic mindset Christianity promulgates. That's what this thread is all about in my view.

I have no authority here. In fact, I'm not stating anything on my own. I'm just repeating what's already been given to us by Him. So, you have no beef with me nor any other "authoritarian" (which doesn't exist here on ATS) theocratic mindest of Christianity. Christianity says God is the authority. If someone says otherwise, by definition they cannot possibly be Christian.

Originally posted by madmanacrosswater
Well Saint in your own way you should. Your church and mine are two different things. However, on the same wave length. From reading and "speaking" to each other my understanding is that your church is a church. Your church teaches what Jesus taught.

Woot!

Originally posted by madmanacrosswater
Many, many do not. That is where the problem arises.

Many? How many? Where are they at? The only ones that hear don't are in the media...and we know how well we can trust those guys .

Originally posted by madmanacrosswater
All too often I see the "church" speak of "the truth". Yet, when I hear their version of "the truth" it is nowhere near what Jesus taught. That is the reason for my saying.

I agree that this would be a problem. Even more of a problem is we don't know where this is being done.

Originally posted by madmanacrosswater
The abortion thing is one of my "pet peeves". Too many sit in self righteous indignation of others when they have no idea what mom is going thru or will have to go thru for the rest of her eternal life. Hopefully, when facing Jesus he will have an understanding of her decision.

Split decision topic among Christians. More appropriate for this thread politics.abovetopsecret.com... (Pro-Life Violence).

[edit on 12-8-2005 by saint4God]

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
well my point was, you shouldnt kill the baby.

I'm good for that.

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
but the rapist should be punished in some way, maybe a lifetime sentence behind bars.

Sure. This could be the start of a beautiful friendship.

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
and even if the rapist were executed in public, he would still have time to redeem himself unto God.

Huh? Where are you getting that from? I've not heard of 'post-life redemption' before. Not saying it doesn't happen, just don't know the source.

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
God always has his ears open to everyone. but my point was not to kill the baby no matter how it was conceived or why its not wanted.
thats just my opinion. its not the babies fault. let it live. people who vote pro choice are always the ones that have already been born. so its a little easier to vote for that.

Hehe, I guess so.

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
I am pro life. you did have a point though on "love your neighbor and love your enemies"
I guess its kinda hard to figure out where to draw the line.
EC

That's just it! We're not supposed to draw any lines when it comes to love. Love everybody regardless.

May love, faith, and hope be with you always,
God bless.

Originally posted by madmanacrosswater
Jesus summed it up when he said to keep it in the closet.

Is that what your Matthew 28:16 says? Odd, mine doesn't.

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by spamandham
It's neither. You can't have a relationship with an imaginary friend,

Call Him imaginary all you like, it doesn't make it so.

...nor does calling god real make him real.

Originally posted by saint4God
What do you call a master that you love and loves you?

A cat.

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by spamandham
Ultimately, you are just talking to yourself, deluded into thinking there's more to it to that

Yessir Mr. Judge sir!

Case closed? Hardly.

The case has yet to be tried. It got kicked out of grand jury when they recognized the evidence was all hearsay.

Originally posted by saint4God
Do I have to say it again? *sigh* Okay, again again I did not find a collection of old books. I found God, who pointed out the collection of books to me. A collection of books by the way I was unable to read.
I'd get very angry and violent over the topic of God before then.

If you're going to draw a metaphysical conclusion, it needs to be large enough to encompass all sects that have had such experiences, including Muslims, Buddhists, etc. Why would god point you to the Bible, while pointing others to the Indian Vedas, others to the Qu'ran, and others to "enlightenment", if he is concerned with people believing in the Bible? Don't you know that your experience is not uniquely Christian?

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by spamandham
The whole sacrifice business is superfluous. You could be justified by faith and forgiven even without it, and you could be justified by grace if god wanted. Even more, he could simply quit making people with a "sin nature". Repeating the party line is not going to convince me that any of it makes any sense. It didn't even make sense when I was a Christian, but I didn't require it to make sense back then.

They're His rules, not mine.

No, his rule is that you must reject faith.

Originally posted by saint4God
But you see, love does matter.

How can god feel love if he is already complete? To feel implies something was lacking before the experience (as does the word experience). If you use 'love' in regard to god, then you must use it as a verb. In that sense, god can only show love, not feel it nor care about it. The ultimate act of love would be to let us be free from him without consequence.

"If you love someone, set them free. If they return, then they are yours. If not, then fry them forever. "

That just doesn't have the right ring to it.

Originally posted by saint4God
I have no authority here. In fact, I'm not stating anything on my own. I'm just repeating what's already been given to us by Him.

No your not. Your repeating what an intermediary told you. Even in your vision, the entity led you to the Bible rather than directly giving you a revelation. The fact that you learned nothing new from this entity should tell you something.

Originally posted by saint4God
So, you have no beef with me nor any other "authoritarian" (which doesn't exist here on ATS) theocratic mindest of Christianity. Christianity says God is the authority. If someone says otherwise, by definition they cannot possibly be Christian.

Plenty of people call themselves Christians and also support things like; putting the 10 Commandments in pulic places, laws against sodomy, laws against abortion, laws against drinking, drugs, prostitution, gambling, adultery, porn, working on Sunday etc., laws in support of "faith based" initiatives, prayer in school, creationism in school, etc.

Christianity existed as a theocracy for most of its existence, and plenty of Christians want to return to that to greater and lesser degrees.

Since there are hundreds of Christians sects, I have no reason to accept your definition of what the word "Christian" means.

[edit on 12-8-2005 by spamandham]

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by saint4God
What do you call a master that you love and loves you?

A cat.

The occasional gem makes it all worthwhile.

Originally posted by saint4God
Call me twisted, but abortion (meaning to stop that which is in process) looks to me like an act of violence, not an act of love.

To stop the starvation, crime and poverty. It's all based on perspective. When Jesus was killed by the Romans, was that bad or good? What If I steal from the rich to give to the poor?

Originally posted by saint4God
I wish I still had the science book but recall the definition of life as something that consumes, grows and responds to stimuli. A fetus does these things. I think that's an appropriate definiton and was my major course of study.

I remeber the definition of life was: Anything that can grow, reproduce and respond to stimuli. Although it will come to be alive, it is not yet.

Originally posted by saint4God
Agreed. Same goes for any parent though, ultimately the proper care is their responsibility.

Abortionists are admitting ahead of time they can't take care of the children.

Originally posted by saint4God
I have, albeit through a sponship program, it's the most I can afford at the moment. Her name is Disaya, she's 8 and lives in Thailand.

Thats really cool. Every year one of my teachers would ask his students if they wanted to all pitch in and adopt a child. I gave 20 because I thought it was a worthy cause. I can't remember where the child was from.

Originally posted by saint4God
As far as volunteering to adopt based on someone walking into an abortion clinic for pre-procedure counselling...not a bad idea at all. Do you think it would work?

Yeah, some couples with trouble conceiving would go for it.

Originally posted by saint4God
What's it about? I rarely arbitrarily commit 2 hours to something I'm unsure of. I thought some other trippy movies were "The Messenger" (Joan of Arc story with a twist), "Dr. Strangelove", "2001: A Space Odyssey", "Last Temptation of Christ", and most recently "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory".

Donnie Darko is about time-travel, wormholes, parallel universes. It sounds kind of stupid, but it lreally makes you think. Plus Frank the rabbit is really creepy. I rate it alongside Identity which I also recommend.

Originally posted by saint4God
Ah! Well according to that definition I'd say no. My reasoning is this. We have the ability to choose on important and unimportant things. If God already ordained each and every choice, then there would be no point to having a choice.

I agree. What I do not only affects my fate, but everyone elses. There are so many choices everyday with trillions of possible outcomes.


[edit on 12-8-2005 by Charlie Murphy]

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy

Originally posted by saint4God
Call me twisted, but abortion (meaning to stop that which is in process) looks to me like an act of violence, not an act of love.

To stop the starvation, crime and poverty.

So you agree then it is an act of violence. Moving on then. Starvation and poverty are a problem and should be each of our responsibilites. I know that was the basis for the broken system called "welfare" and agree it needs to be fixed. Charities such as www.sundaybreakfast.org... are a great way to volunteer your time or resources to helping those in hard situations. It is not a cure, but if you can pitch in and help, it can make a world of difference to someone who has chosen love instead of violence. Those who have chosen to live in hard times instead of luxury. I believe our laws need to enforce fatherly financial responsibility. We have DNA testing to establish positive ID's, so where's the hang-up? I don't know, I'm not a law maker, but I think this is the direction we should be thinking.

As far as crime goes. That is no-one's doing but our own. As a state judge once told me (despite whatever I had to say) "obey the law". End of case.

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
It's all based on perspective. When Jesus was killed by the Romans, was that bad or good?

It was a sacrifice for all of mankind. Are you saying aborting a child is for the eternal salvation of mankind? Who benefits from the abortion? Who is the consequence of the abortion? Is one life more important than another?

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
What If I steal from the rich to give to the poor?

Yes, that would be wrong. Sorry that's not a popular answer.

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
I remeber the definition of life was: Anything that can grow, reproduce and respond to stimuli. Although it will come to be alive, it is not yet.

I agree with the definition, though at what point does it 'come alive'?

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
Abortionists are admitting ahead of time they can't take care of the children.

Having foresight does not necessarily mean a person is responsible. In fact, it's the giving up of that responsibility. Many of us are given responsibilities we do not want, but they become ours nevertheless.

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
Thats really cool.

Every year one of my teachers would ask his students if they wanted to all pitch in and adopt a child. I gave 20 because I thought it was a worthy cause. I can't remember where the child was from.

Good deal! I think everyone should try their best to give whenever they can.

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
Yeah, some couples with trouble conceiving would go for it.

A pair of friends are in that situation now. They say they cannot afford to adopt and would have to go out of country for it to be cost effective. Supply and demand. If there is a supply, would the cost be so high? Maybe I'm not understanding the dynamics of adoption economics.

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
Donnie Darko is about time-travel, wormholes, parallel universes.

Cool! like Farscape:

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
It sounds kind of stupid, but it lreally makes you think. Plus Frank the rabbit is really creepy. I rate it alongside Identity which I also recommend.

Sounds interesting

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
I agree. What I do not only affects my fate, but everyone elses.

Wow! Now that's a very responsible answer in my opinion.

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
There are so many choices everyday with trillions of possible outcomes.

True dat.

Many? How many? Where are they at? The only ones that hear don't are in the media...and we know how well we can trust those guys .

No my friend Saint. Not in the media-use the media is the proper way of expressing. Funny that many who continually knock the media continue to use it for their purposes.

Originally posted by madmanacrosswater
No my friend Saint. Not in the media-use the media is the proper way of expressing. Funny that many who continually knock the media continue to use it for their purposes.

Bad news makes the news because it sells, yes? I don't pay heed to news of low percentage local wild-cards to are acting on their own accord so I'm not sure what you mean about me using it for my own purposes.

Minus that, what churches are we speaking of and how are they teaching out of alignment with Jesus?

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
What If I steal from the rich to give to the poor?

I was catching up on this thread, and this question really jumped out at me. I just finished reading a book called "Wild At Heart" that was fantastic and fascinating. It mentioned some things I had never really taken into account.

5 days ago, I would have answered this question with a very simple, trite answer that makes sense on the surface: You can't fight sin with sin.

However, John Eldredge notes that 4 women are included in the geneology of Christ in the New Testament. Only 4, and Bathsheba was mentioned as the wife of Uriel, not by name. Rahab was one of those 3 mentioned by name. What did she do that allowed her to be glorified in such a manner while so many others weren't?

If you recall, Rahab is the woman who took in the Israeli spies in Jericho before Israel took down the walls of Jericho and plundered the city. Jesus says, give unto Caesar what is Caesar's -- in other words, obey the laws of the land, for God placed those rulers there for a purpose. Yet He also says that God's law trumps man's, and you should violate man's law if it is in contention with God's.

Rahab committed treason. She caused her home city to fall to an invading army, and was greatly rewarded by God for it. It's an interesting conundrum!

However, as far as stealing from the rich to give to the poor, that is clearly stated as wrong -- the 8th commandment clearly states that theft, in any way, is wrong. Even if your intentions are noble, the ends do not justify the means.

Originally posted by saint4God

So you agree then it is an act of violence. Moving on then. Starvation and poverty are a problem and should be each of our responsibilites. I know that was the basis for the broken system called "welfare" and agree it needs to be fixed. Charities such as www.sundaybreakfast.org... are a great way to volunteer your time or resources to helping those in hard situations. It is not a cure, but if you can pitch in and help, it can make a world of difference to someone who has chosen love instead of violence. Those who have chosen to live in hard times instead of luxury. I believe our laws need to enforce fatherly financial responsibility. We have DNA testing to establish positive ID's, so where's the hang-up? I don't know, I'm not a law maker, but I think this is the direction we should be thinking.

Right on, Saint! I agree with you 150%. A hand up and not a hand-out, as one Non-profit organization put it. Welfare reform has worked to some extent: those who recieve financial assistance must actively look for work to stay on the roles; but it is still out of whack, over-all.

As far as crime goes. That is no-one's doing but our own. As a state judge once told me (despite whatever I had to say) "obey the law". End of case.

Yes. "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime."

Originally posted by saint4GodIt was a sacrifice for all of mankind. Are you saying aborting a child is for the eternal salvation of mankind? Who benefits from the abortion? Who is the consequence of the abortion? Is one life more important than another?

Excellent point, there. No one benefits from an abortion except the abortionist. The mother will regret and second-guess her decision for the rest of her life. I know this from personal experience and conversations with friends and family members who have made that choice. Every child who is concieved should have the opportunity to be born. How many lives have been lost to abortion who might have contributed great and wonderful things to our world? I tremble every time I even consider that thought.

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
Abortionists are admitting ahead of time they can't take care of the children.

Originally posted by saint4God Having foresight does not necessarily mean a person is responsible. In fact, it's the giving up of that responsibility. Many of us are given responsibilities we do not want, but they become ours nevertheless.

Right on, again. The responsible thing to do is to bear the child through the full term of the pregancy, and then if not wanted give it up for adoption. Many, many couples in this country have either lost the means to concieve their own children or have undergone years of failed pregnancies and premature births and would give anything to adopt a child to love as their own; I know this also from first hand experience. I have an adopted 128 year old son who is a joy and inspiration to me and his mother as well as to many, many others only because his birth mother accepted her responsibility to carry him to term and allow my wife and I to adopt and raise him as our own. Being Joseph's dad has been the greatest gift that God has given me, short of eternal salvation.

A pair of friends are in that situation now. They say they cannot afford to adopt and would have to go out of country for it to be cost effective. Supply and demand. If there is a supply, would the cost be so high? Maybe I'm not understanding the dynamics of adoption economics.

Exactly my point. Most couples are not interested in adopting an "older" child" ( generally, any child over the age of 2 or 3) and there are just not enough new borns being given up for adoption as there used to be. You can you guess why?

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
I agree. What I do not only affects my fate, but everyone elses.

Originally posted by saint4God Wow! Now that's a very responsible answer in my opinion.

Yeah, Charlie! That is what I am talking about; Some things we do only effect ourselves but others not only effect others, they may end up effecting the entire world.

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
There are so many choices everyday with trillions of possible outcomes.

[qoute]]Originally posted by saint4God True dat.


All the more reason to be sure we are making the right decisions. Word?
Word!.

Originally posted by Stormrider
No one benefits from an abortion except the abortionist. The mother will regret and second-guess her decision for the rest of her life. I know this from personal experience and conversations with friends and family members who have made that choice. Every child who is concieved should have the opportunity to be born. How many lives have been lost to abortion who might have contributed great and wonderful things to our world? I tremble every time I even consider that thought.

i don't think the 'is it right, or is it wrong' arguement of abortion can be summed up in one thread. it goes by what 'you' personally believe. maybe the reason why some of the 'mothers-to-be' felt sad after they had the abortion, was perhaps that 50% of the people they knew did not look kindly on their choice. how are you going to feel if you have your so-called friends and family telling you, that you made the wrong choice...because it's not like you can go back and change that choice.

also the question of 'when is there a life involved'. some say it's as soon as conception takes place. other's say not until it's born. it's not actualy 'life' until the baby is born, at which point the baby breathes on it's own, because up until then it is merely living of it's mother and is not 'alive' in terms of breathing on it's own.

what about this:

a mother of 16 years old, having an abortion because her boyfriend didn't use a condom, is that as immoral as a girl also 16 having an abortion, who got raped by 2 men,catching aids in the process, thus taking the risk of passing on her new disease to her baby-to-be? i'm taking two extremes, but probably two almost real life scenarios for some people.

the first one can be argued that she didn't want the responsibility, but as said before sometimes we don't want the responsibility, yet we have to and face up to it. however, the second mother having an abortion is a totally different scenario. she doesn't know who the father is, she now has aids, he baby is very likely to have aids, she is living with the trauma of being raped, and you want to have a go at her and tell her 'she' is wrong for having an abortion.

Wow, it's been awhile since Ive been on ATS. Been on vacation/ sick, but its great to be back.

Originally posted by saint4God
So you agree then it is an act of violence.

Violence isnt always bad, if its the lesser of two evils. Some doctors have killed hundreds of patients, but I would not imprison them. Putting someone out of there misery should not be a crime.

I know there are other ways of dealing with crime and poverty but I do not disagree with this one.

Originally posted by saint4God
It was a sacrifice for all of mankind. Are you saying aborting a child is for the eternal salvation of mankind? Who benefits from the abortion? Who is the consequence of the abortion? Is one life more important than another?

I do not believe Jesus dieing did anything for me, nor do I think an abortion is for anyone but the child. I do not support abortion so that the mother can have a better life, I support it so that the child does not have a bad one.

Originally posted by saint4God
I agree with the definition, though at what point does it 'come alive'?

I always thought we are first alive when we exit the womb.

Originally posted by saint4God
Having foresight does not necessarily mean a person is responsible.

I see a person who has had an abortion as more responsible than one who has 10 kids and lives off welfare.

Originally posted by saint4God
A pair of friends are in that situation now. They say they cannot afford to adopt and would have to go out of country for it to be cost effective. Supply and demand. If there is a supply, would the cost be so high? Maybe I'm not understanding the dynamics of adoption economics.

Tell them to go an abortion clinic and maybe if they convince someone to have their baby, it will be free.

Originally posted by saint4God
Cool! like Farscape

Well actually no, not really. It is exactly what I was talking about when I said" What I do not only affects my fate, but everyone elses". It takes place around the present, not futuristic. Maybe by now you've seen it?

Originally posted by saint4God
Wow! Now that's a very responsible answer in my opinion.

Thanks !

Originally posted by junglejake
However, as far as stealing from the rich to give to the poor, that is clearly stated as wrong -- the 8th commandment clearly states that theft, in any way, is wrong. Even if your intentions are noble, the ends do not justify the means.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I understand what your saying but in some cases I think I would be OK. My original question was stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, which maybe didnt get across the right idea.

Is it right for a boy to steal a loaf of bread to feed his starving family?