Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Obama Administration: We Can and Will Force Christians to Act Against Their Faith

page: 23
30
<< 20  21  22    24  25 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 07:38 AM
link   
reply to post by cantyousee
 





You not gonna sit there and tell us you're not a sinner are you? And what are you gonna do about your sin when you meet your creator? Are you prepared to tell him that you don't recognize his authority and he has no business judging you? Just how are you gonna face him? Your disbelief in him isn't gonna negate you answering to him. Better get your head out of the dark place and quit being obtuse. Everyone on this planet is a sinner. There was only one ever came who wasn't and you don't believe in him. Where does that put you?


Peddle your street corner preacher "hell, fire and damnation" elsewhere! This is ATS and you're not going to convince anyone here that Hobby Lobby should be able to discriminate against women because of the above Bible thumping sentiments!

Wake up! This isn't 2013 BC, please join us here in 2013 AD!




posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 02:11 PM
link   
Forcing Christians to act against their own faith - how about forcing Muslims to act against their own faith - and the others exempted from this legal piece of trash law. What is goose for the goose is gander for the gander.
What if men get pregnant - would this change law - and how quickly?
While government should not preach religion or recognize one religion above another it should also look at old laws and delete those that are steeped in the values of a particular religion.
One law that gets my goat is called "sin tax" a tax on things considered a sin - well now sin is a religious concept - maybe you didn't realize that. Many moral issues seem to be judged by our Judiciary by religious values - I thought State and Religion were to be separated!
It seems even more important when America is being invaded by a people who act out their religious values just walking the streets anywhere - see a christian behead a christian - see a Buddhist behead a Buddhist !
Perhaps we should also consider banning swords and machetes which are often used to behead the infidels of Muslim religious values.
I know I am sort of ranting so I will stop here with this final statement.
Muslim/Christians each have their own values or tenets of faith - if you can force one group to act against their faith then one must also force all faiths to act against their beliefs = equality in action!



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by cantyousee
 





You not gonna sit there and tell us you're not a sinner are you? And what are you gonna do about your sin when you meet your creator? Are you prepared to tell him that you don't recognize his authority and he has no business judging you? Just how are you gonna face him? Your disbelief in him isn't gonna negate you answering to him. Better get your head out of the dark place and quit being obtuse. Everyone on this planet is a sinner. There was only one ever came who wasn't and you don't believe in him. Where does that put you?


Peddle your street corner preacher "hell, fire and damnation" elsewhere! This is ATS and you're not going to convince anyone here that Hobby Lobby should be able to discriminate against women because of the above Bible thumping sentiments!

Wake up! This isn't 2013 BC, please join us here in 2013 AD!


I don't know anything about Hobby Lobby. I guess I haven't been paying attention. Seems you've garnered all my attention. I was just responding to your over all attitude about God and your existance.
You have to admit, we all die. I guess your veiw of death is just an end of existance with no afterlife. That is a pretty dim veiw in my opionion. One should want the afterlife spoken of in the Bible even if they didn't believe it was true. Maybe that's why your attitude is so dry and ineffectual. Nothing at all to look forward to.
Now on the other hand, what of you are wrong. What if a superior being created you and you have to face him at death? You have to admit these are the only two options. You are staking your entire eternal life on the fact that this is it and nothing else. Look around you at all the intelligent design and weigh the percentages. I don't think they are on your side. Simple common sense and a little math will tell you that much. I wouldn't want to be in your shoes with so flimsy a chance at nothing. Is it really all that hard to humble yourself and reach out to God?



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by cantyousee
 



Now on the other hand, what of you are wrong.


I don't believe in your God, but I guess your God doesn't care about intellectual honesty, just blind obedience.



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by cantyousee
 

I like the way you said that.

It is true don't be to cocky with God or find out what happens.



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
No actually, all that is needed to make these conclusions is an open-mind, reading comprehension, and a knowledge of historical events. If you really would like to know how I made these conclusions then you first have to know the meaning of basic prophetic symbols, which the Bible itself reveals. Once you know the meaning of the symbols of Bible prophecy, then the view of the world described in the Bible starts to make sense. It depends how deep in the rabbit hole you are willing to go to search for the truth.
In order to understand why the first beast is the Vatican from 538AD- 1798AAD, you first have to understand the meaning of blasphemy. The beginning of Rev. 13 begins, "And I saw a beast rising out of the sea, with ten horns and seven heads, with ten diadems upon it's horns and a blasphemous name upon it's heads. Later on the Bible specifically tells why the name written upon it's head are blasphemous, in verse 6 its says,"it opened it's mouth to utter blasphemies against God, blaspheming his name and his dwelling, that is, those who dwell in heaven." So the first beast must be a power that speaks or makes laws and other declarations that are in direct contradiction to God. Now you are asking yourself there must be many powers both political and religious that blaspheme against God, how do you we know the 1st beast is the Roman Catholic Church from 538 AD to 1798 AD?

In order to answer this question you have to look at The Book of Daniel, Ch. 7 in which describes 4 beasts that rise of the great sea. (note Rev. 17:15 defines sea as "peoples and multitudes and nations and tongues) .These 4 beasts are as follows:
Babylon - lion with eagles wings (Dan 7:4)
Medo-Persia (Dan. 8:20) - bear raised up on one side with 3 ribs in its mouth ( Dan. 7:5) / ram with two horns one higher than the other with the higher one coming up last, (Dan. 8: 3)
Greece (Dan 8:21) - leopard with 4 wings and 4 heads / the he-goat with a conspicuous horn which then is broken and then replaced by 4 conspicuous horns (Dan.8-8)
the dreadful and terrible beast that was exceedingly strong with 10 horns (Ancient Roman Empire- 10 horns are are the Germanic Kingdoms after the fall of Rome) of which three horns are uprooted (Vandals, Ostrogoths, and Alani) by a little horn (Roman Catholic Empire - mixture of religious of political power which ruled European/world affairs for 1260 years (538 AD- 1798AD). Daniel 7:24-25 gives an explanation of the symbols used :

"As for the ten horns, out of this kingdom ten kings shall arise, and another shall arise after them; he shall be different from the former ones, and shall put down three kings. He shall speak words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and shall think to change the times and the law; and they shall be given into his hand for a time, two times, and half a time."

The only power that fits the description given by the Bible is the Roman Catholic Church that changed the 10 commandments of God,

and changed the time by instituting the current Gregorian Calendar which was introduced by Pope Gregory XIII in 1582

When the Bible speaks of blasphemy it refers to the claims made by the Catholic Church such as the Pope being infallible on matters of faith and morals, en.wikipedia.org...
and other blasphemies as detailed in this video:


Note "Time, two times, and half a time," Dan 7:25 is equal to the 42 months of Rev. 13:5 In Bible Prophecy, a day= 1 year (Ezekiel 4:6) and therefore 42 months x 30 days = 1260 days =1260 years.

The United States is considered to be the 2nd beast of Rev. 13 because as it states in verse 11: "Then I saw another beast which rose out the earth," unlike the 1st of beast which rose of water signifying that 2nd beast came out of a land that not very populated when compared to Europe. The only country that fits that description that surged close to 1798 was the United States. United States once a symbol of good and justice in the world, "like a lamb" and now thee United States is speaking like a "Dragon," through it's laws that restrict the civil and religious freedoms of it's citizens and through foreign policy of war, which spreads death and destruction in many areas of the world. The Bible mentions that United States "work great signs, even making fire come down from heaven to earth in sight of men; and by the signs which it is allowed to work in the presence of the beast, it deceives those who dwell on earth (Rev. 13 13-15). We know the United States has deceived many via 9/11, CIA, HAARP and other secrets.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 10:23 AM
link   
[
the dreadful and terrible beast that was exceedingly strong with 10 horns (Ancient Roman Empire- 10 horns are are the Germanic Kingdoms after the fall of Rome) of which three horns are uprooted (Vandals, Ostrogoths, and Alani) by a little horn (Roman Catholic Empire - mixture of religious of political power which ruled European/world affairs for 1260 years (538 AD- 1798AD). Daniel 7:24-25 gives an explanation of the symbols used :

"As for the ten horns, out of this kingdom ten kings shall arise, and another shall arise after them; he shall be different from the former ones, and shall put down three kings. He shall speak words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and shall think to change the times and the law; and they shall be given into his hand for a time, two times, and half a time."


Speaking of the three kings that the little horn puts down. Would you consider something?
The characteristics of the antichrist are in Daniel.
"Then will come a raiser of taxes in the kingdom but he will be destroyed within few days neither in anger nor in battle" and another...he receives no honor in the kingdom but obtains the kingdom through flatteries(deceits)
Obama has never had the honor of the kingdom as far as the saints are concerned because he is an illegal alien.
he also ,especially in this last election) obtained the kingdom through flateries or deceits. He bought the election
through entitlements and obama phones and such.
He is definitely a raiser of taxes. He is definitely changing times and laws. He is also casting down the place of his own sanctuary. he is casting down America.
As soon as he got in office he began a revolution in Egypt and toppled Mubarack, then he done the same thing in Libya. Now he is doing it in Syria. israel is surrounded by fascist muslims. he will off er a peace treaty and Hezbollah and all the rest will laydown their arms for Obama. I think this plus the marriage supper will happen this spring. I also think a great earthquake will happen early this year in America.
The reason the raiser of taxes is destroyed but not in anger nor in battle is because, I believe, Obama will be possessed and infact become a different person. A similar possession will come upon the minions that serve him, just like the possession of Hiltler's Germany. Great changes are in the offing. Christians get oil now!!!
edit on 6-1-2013 by cantyousee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by cantyousee
 


I guess from your sarcasm you think this is a joke, is it a joke that thousands of innocent people around the world are murdered each day? Is it a joke that thousands of lives each day are snuffed out before they have a chance to experience life? Is it joke that there are thousands of people each day who decide to kill themselves because they lose all hope in the world and in humanity? Is it a joke that there are thousands of people each day who are forced to work against their will in factories in China and other places around the world? Is it a joke that there are thousands of people each day who die because of hunger and famine? Is it a joke that there are thousands of people each day who die from diseases that have no cure? Is it a joke that there thousands of innocent people each day who are either physically or psychologically abused/ tortured?



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Emergingtruth
reply to post by cantyousee
 


I guess from your sarcasm you think this is a joke, is it a joke that thousands of innocent people around the world are murdered each day? Is it a joke that thousands of lives each day are snuffed out before they have a chance to experience life? Is it joke that there are thousands of people each day who decide to kill themselves because they lose all hope in the world and in humanity? Is it a joke that there are thousands of people each day who are forced to work against their will in factories in China and other places around the world? Is it a joke that there are thousands of people each day who die because of hunger and famine? Is it a joke that there are thousands of people each day who die from diseases that have no cure? Is it a joke that there thousands of innocent people each day who are either physically or psychologically abused/ tortured?

What in the world are you talking about? What did I say that makes you think I thinkl this is a joke? You could quote me so I'd know what your talking about. If you've read any of my posts and absorbed them, then you would understand me better. I been talking about the only hope there is.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Emergingtruth
 


I have looked at all of the data you discuss, and more, over the years. it's always been a very interesting topic for me. it's true that there is much about the RCC that is, well, off, to put it mildly. The rest, though.....can see how you get to where you are, just not sure I agree 100%. There is a very large factor left out of those calculations, I feel. In any case, it's clear you do research, and don't simply post opinions.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by grey580
I see you're reading the Constitution but not understanding.


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


You, as a person, can freely express your opinion. Though it might have repercussions. So just be careful.
(Side Note: for example yelling fire in a theater. Not all speech is protected especially when imminent lawless action could arise because of your speech.)

Now the Government, on the other hand, has what it can do or say or support clearly defined.
In the establishment clause. The constitution says the government may be neither in favor or against any 1 religion or be in favor or against non religion. It must support everyone equally.

On the grounds of abortion being against your beliefs/faith. There is no way in the world that the government could pass a law based on said beliefs.
It would be unconstitutional.


I have read it, and I understand it quite well. At least, though, you post in a reasonable adult fashion, unlike some.

Totally agree on those small amounts of free speech that are not protected (and should not be). Our rights don't give us the right to infringe on the rights of others, and endangering lives with "free" speech would do so. hence, the reason such things are not permitted.

What the Constitution states is that the government cannot establish a religion, meaning, a state church, as some countries have done int he past. It doesn't mean that those involved in government lose their right to free expression of their religion, though. What good would freedom be if those running the government did not enjoy the same freedoms as other citizens?

As for a law, no, you can't base one on beliefs, and I have never said anyone should. You can base one on science, though. When an egg meets a sperm, and they join, you have a unique person, with their own DNA. That's scientifically verifiable. That person should be as protected as any other citizen. Protection should not be based on developmental stages, or how much a person might feel or perceive. Such factors in a law leave far too much room for interpretation, and for abuse. Separate human DNA leaves no room for interpretation, and is thus a better standard. The issue is how one defines a person. If we leave little loopholes, then eventually, those can grow, and anyone could be called a "non-person".



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 


A fertilized egg is NOT a person, not even close. It deserves no rights of personage, that's just crazy talk! A woman, however is a person, with rights to her own self determination.

Taking oral contraception or using and IUD doesn't make anyone a murderer.



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 


A fertilized egg is NOT a person, not even close. It deserves no rights of personage, that's just crazy talk! A woman, however is a person, with rights to her own self determination.

Taking oral contraception or using and IUD doesn't make anyone a murderer.


No, it's a person, with their own DNA. You do know about DNA, right? What is "crazy talk" is pretending that, somehow, having unique human DNA doesn't make one a person. Science doesn't back your position.



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 12:11 AM
link   
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 


Viruses and bacteria have DNA too.

A fertilized egg is NOT a person. Using oral contraception or an IUD doesn't make one a murderer.



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 02:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 


Viruses and bacteria have DNA too.

A fertilized egg is NOT a person. Using oral contraception or an IUD doesn't make one a murderer.


Now you are being plain ridiculous. Viruses and bacteria don't have HUMAN DNA. They have DNA for what they are.

A "fertilized egg" IS a person, and killing one is murder.



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 03:38 AM
link   
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 


Every living thing has DNA. A fertilized egg is a single cell. One cell! Not a person! Every human cell has DNA! There are more cells and DNA in one of your eye lashes, than there are in a zygote. Still not a person.

Get a grip. A woman is a person.

A woman can use oral contraception or an IUD without being called a murderer. Do you realize that what you're saying is that she is a murderer?



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 04:35 AM
link   
reply to post by pavelivanov22
 


And this shocks you?

Did you not know that Obama was a bloodline Jew?
Did you not know that the Jews have been struggling with Rome for thousands of years?
Did you not know that the Jews' Holy Bible reveals that the Jews believe they were gifted the Earth by their god?
Did you think Rome disappeared?
Did you think the Cold War ended?



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 05:14 AM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


only if they can prove that a particular case of murder occurred which they can't....and, well, then they'd need a law indentifying the fertilized egg as such, which they don't have.

how many miscarriages occur every year, that we know about?
and well, there are many more that will will never know about because they occurred the first month of conception??

wonder how many women they would label as "murderers" for taking the pill, just to find out later that the women or her partner was infertile?

and, well, if they were to give this single cell organism the same rights as every other human, wonder just how they would eventually handle those clashes between the rights of the women that that cell abides in and the cell???

I pop ibprofen serveral times every day, it keeps the swelling down in my feet, thus makes it easier to walk...
that ibprofen also carries a warning on it's label, don't take the last three months of pregnancy, I see that warning on alot of medications. should the rights of that unborn within me superscede my right to walk, or the person's right to have a particular symptom alleviated or condition treated?? who should decide just how much the women should bear, to protect the poor innocent unborn child of course...you, the courts, the lawmakers in washington who don't have enough common sense to know we all don't have money trees growing out in our back yard to to go pick hundred dollar bills from when our craparse paychecks can't even make half the bills for the month?? what about the collateral damage incurred? many women have to work now days, they have little ones looking at them to meet their basic needs....so, oh, ya, the rights of those few cells within the women's bodies should supersceded not only her right to be able to take the medications she needs to remain functional, but also the family's right to her paycheck, so they can remain financially functional, as well as the rights of her other children to have the clean clothes, the cooked meals, the orderly house, of which society and culture have depended on her to bring about throughout the centuries!!!

it would end up being a legal nightmare!!!



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 






What the Constitution states is that the government cannot establish a religion, meaning, a state church, as some countries have done int he past. It doesn't mean that those involved in government lose their right to free expression of their religion, though. What good would freedom be if those running the government did not enjoy the same freedoms as other citizens?


That's not what I meant. They are free to believe what they wish.
It's just that they cannot make laws based upon those beliefs.
They must be impartial in their lawmaking.
For example they couldn't make a law saying it was illegal to be eat shellfish because it was an abomination in the eyes of God.
That's what I meant and you agree with that below.




As for a law, no, you can't base one on beliefs, and I have never said anyone should. You can base one on science, though. When an egg meets a sperm, and they join, you have a unique person, with their own DNA. That's scientifically verifiable. That person should be as protected as any other citizen. Protection should not be based on developmental stages, or how much a person might feel or perceive. Such factors in a law leave far too much room for interpretation, and for abuse. Separate human DNA leaves no room for interpretation, and is thus a better standard. The issue is how one defines a person. If we leave little loopholes, then eventually, those can grow, and anyone could be called a "non-person".


I, for one, am not for abortion as birth control. But that decision is not mine to make. So I won't interfere with a woman's right to choose. I have an issue with late term abortions though.

However with that out of the way. I would argue that a baby is not a person unless it can survive on it's own.
Until that point the completely dependent on the mother for it's existence. Sure you will eventually have a unique person but just not for some time yet to come.

Personally I wish that science could figure out a way to gestate a baby outside a womb so that we'd never lose more kids to abortions. But that's still science fiction.

But we are going off topic aren't we.

Simply put the law isn't forcing christians to act against their faith. It's protecting the rights of those who may not share christian beliefs.
edit on 7-1-2013 by grey580 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by grey580
 





Personally I wish that science could figure out a way to gestate a baby outside a womb so that we'd never lose more kids to abortions. But that's still science fiction.


It's coming!

Making Abortion Obsolete



edit on 7-1-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 20  21  22    24  25 >>

log in

join