|
Post by PhilipDC78 on Oct 17, 2004 15:23:34 GMT -5
Not non-voters - Christians. No truly born-again Christian would vote for someone that supports partial-birth abortion (or any kind of abortion for that matter), or laws that would sanction gay marriages. I also have a real problem with true Christians not voting for the man that stands against the above. In other words, only lost people will vote for Kerry. More and more the election process is a demarcation line between light and darkness. And the way the lever is pulled is an indication of whether the voter is a citizen of heaven or a child of darkness. Ok, I can understand what your thinking is, but please do not ever come back here and hypocritically accuse other people around here of insulting and twisting scripture to their own purposes.
|
|
|
Post by Nicodemus on Oct 17, 2004 17:14:09 GMT -5
I have no idea what you are talking about. This is not an insult - born again Christians do not support abortion - so how under heaven are we going to vote for a pro-abortion canditate? What insult? Perhaps the insult is that you believe we should vote for Kerry against our own consciences?
|
|
|
Post by Nicodemus on Oct 17, 2004 17:46:48 GMT -5
Twisting Scripture?
|
|
|
Post by Traffic Demon on Oct 17, 2004 21:09:23 GMT -5
Nicodemus - "This is not an insult - born again Christians do not support abortion - so how under heaven are we going to vote for a pro-abortion canditate?"
Once again, you are judging the salvation of others not on God's terms, but on your own. Salvation is determined by one's acceptance of Christ's sacrifice, not whose name they punch on a ballot, regardless of how much you would like that to be the case. If our vote is to be cast only for those who support what a Christian should, then Bush makes just as bad a choice. Besides, if Bush cared about abortion for anything other than the votes his position on it would get him in November, don't you think he would have done something about it by now?
--Traffic Nation Drink life as it comes, straight no chaser
|
|
|
Post by Nicodemus on Oct 17, 2004 21:24:49 GMT -5
Nicodemus - "This is not an insult - born again Christians do not support abortion - so how under heaven are we going to vote for a pro-abortion canditate?"Once again, you are judging the salvation of others not on God's terms, but on your own. Salvation is determined by one's acceptance of Christ's sacrifice, not whose name they punch on a ballot, regardless of how much you would like that to be the case. If our vote is to be cast only for those who support what a Christian should, then Bush makes just as bad a choice. Besides, if Bush cared about abortion for anything other than the votes his position on it would get him in November, don't you think he would have done something about it by now? --Traffic Nation Drink life as it comes, straight no chaser A President and/or lawmakers can do little about abortion as long as their is a Supreme Court that acts as a legislative group - and legalize abortion not on the basis of the Constitution but on their political leanings. Now, the next President is going to select probably two new justices. A conservative justice will interpret the law with its basic protections of life - and, in so doing, Bush will impact the abortion laws.
|
|
|
Post by Traffic Demon on Oct 17, 2004 21:55:20 GMT -5
Nicodemus - "A President and/or lawmakers can do little about abortion as long as their is a Supreme Court that acts as a legislative group - and legalize abortion not on the basis of the Constitution but on their political leanings."Funny, but I've never seen anything in the Constitution that would in any way make abortion illegal. Gee, that would mean that it's not the Supreme Court's fault after all. It would seem that your (mis)understanding of government is right on par with your (mis)understanding of science or salvation. Ok cpkmtyoll, raise your hand if you're surprised. No, I was serious. Come on, anybody? --BDT And I'm all outta bubble gum
|
|
|
Post by Nicodemus on Oct 17, 2004 22:02:08 GMT -5
Well, the Preamble speaks of ". . . secur[ing] the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.
Last time I researched the subject, our posterity refers to our children as yet unborn. An infant in the womb of its mother should have liberty to be born.
|
|
|
Post by Nicodemus on Oct 17, 2004 22:17:01 GMT -5
The fourteenth amendment states, in part: ""No State shall… deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…" . How did the Supremes get around this - they pulled their modern Dred Scott decision by stating that an unborn fetus has no rights - since he is not a person.
Sounds like the Supremes entered the jurisdiction of religion in this decision - something that they are to be separate from. How can they determine when life begins? Only GOD can, and it is clear in the Word that life begins at conception.
"For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother’s womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well" (Psa. 139:13-14)
|
|
|
Post by Traffic Demon on Oct 17, 2004 22:21:52 GMT -5
Nicodemus - "Last time I researched the subject, our posterity refers to our children as yet unborn."Looks like you need a new dictionary then, since the word refers to one's descendants; one has to be born for the word to apply. Wow, Nicky, you lose again! "An infant in the womb of its mother should have liberty to be born."And yet there are those that feel that that liberty is superceded by a mother's liberty to choose whether or not to see the pregnancy to term. The fact that somebody disagrees with Nicodemus does not define their position as incorrect. All that, and you still haven't addressed the fact that you are inappropriately defining salvation according to your standards instead of God's. But nobody expects you to do so, we've all seen how you conveniently ignore the facts when they contradict your position. --El Traffico Diablo sparty
|
|
|
Post by Nicodemus on Oct 17, 2004 23:34:41 GMT -5
When the Preamble was written, were their posterity born yet? No, I didn't think so. They were framing their protection.
Some day you and I will both know which of us is wrong in the area of salvation.
|
|
|
Post by Traffic Demon on Oct 18, 2004 0:17:54 GMT -5
Nicodemus - "When the Preamble was written, were their posterity born yet? No, I didn't think so. They were framing their protection."
You obviously didn't bother looking at the definition of the word before typing that post. The word posterity refers to one's descendents. One cannot be a descendant if one is not born. Therefore, the word posterity cannot be applied to the unborn. As seems to be the case with any topic, you are asserting your position to be correct even when evidence to the contrary has been presented. Most people learn before they are five years old that reality does not conform itself to our desires, what's taking you so long?
"Some day you and I will both know which of us is wrong in the area of salvation."
Why wait? "Some day" can be today, since it has already shown that your qualifications for salvation - who one votes for, or how one interprets Genesis, have no basis in Scripture. Wow, another loss for Nicky! Keep this up and the Dolphins might sign you on just so you won't feel so lonely.
--Blood Sugar Sex Traffic Then it comes to be that the soothing light at the end of your tunnel is just a freight train coming your way
|
|
|
Post by Cohdra on Oct 18, 2004 1:31:59 GMT -5
Nicodemus - "This is not an insult - born again Christians do not support abortion - so how under heaven are we going to vote for a pro-abortion canditate?"Once again, you are judging the salvation of others not on God's terms, but on your own. Salvation is determined by one's acceptance of Christ's sacrifice, not whose name they punch on a ballot, regardless of how much you would like that to be the case. If our vote is to be cast only for those who support what a Christian should, then Bush makes just as bad a choice. Besides, if Bush cared about abortion for anything other than the votes his position on it would get him in November, don't you think he would have done something about it by now? --Traffic Nation Drink life as it comes, straight no chaser I have to disagree here a little bit. You cannot just "take the money and run". You cannot pay lip service to Christ and not support what is right. That's a false Christianity. There is no way you can make me believe that Christ would approve of mother's destroying their own children. God bless
|
|
|
Post by Traffic Demon on Oct 18, 2004 7:09:12 GMT -5
Cohdra - "There is no way you can make me believe that Christ would approve of mother's destroying their own children."
I'm not saying that He would, only that one's stance on the issue is wholly irrelevant to the matter of one's salvation.
--TDv2.0 1:4:9
|
|
|
Post by PhilipDC78 on Oct 18, 2004 8:42:31 GMT -5
Perhaps the insult is that you believe we should vote for Kerry against our own consciences? Where did I say that I support Kerry? Also your assumption that people who do not vote would automatically have voted for Kerry is flawed, because I know of at least one person here who has shown that they are a Christian who is not voting, so according to your logic, they would be a Bush supporter. So by not voting, they are taking a vote away from Bush.
|
|
|
Post by PhilipDC78 on Oct 18, 2004 8:48:17 GMT -5
Well there are many examples of you doing it, but just in this one thread here, you are twisting scripture to say that true Christians would only vote for Bush. The reality is that it is not as cut and dry as you put it. Obviously to you, abortion and gay marriage are the top two platform concerns in your mind, so since the Bible is against these, and Kerry is for them, then you would never vote for Kerry. However, these issues are not the top concerns of some Christians that I have spoken to. Some Christians believe that war and poverty are their top concerns. They believe that Bush is too pro-war, pro-killing of people in other parts of the world. They believe that Bush does not care about the poor in this country and around the world. They believe that Kerry would do a better job in these areas. Now will he? I don't know. But those are just some of the arguments that I have heard people around me use to support Kerry. Now remember, I never said that I support Kerry myself, but I am just showing how you have naively twisted scriptures by saying that true Christians would only support Bush.
|
|