*This new debate is about abortion, government, Terri, Bush, and other issues. Once again, Alan harbors wrong points on issues. I have an instinct to defend Bible Believers and this is what I'm doing here. I like this debate so much, that I've included it here.
Alan Adaschik: You are absolutely correct when you say that it
is imperative for people to follow God and not men. However, it is absolutely
wrong for anyone assume that he is God and ordain how people should follow God
through civil law. It is wrong from a constitutional point of view. It is wrong
from a humanistic point of view. It is wrong from a logical point of view. It is
wrong from a moral point of view. And it wrong because doing so offends God and
is repugnant to him. As said previously, God wants his children to come to him
willingly and without compulsion. Those who would force people to follow God and
not men are playing God and using the law to force men to follow them and not
God.
Response: I know I’m correct to say that we are to follow God and not men. Never did I assume anyone as God at all. To assume so is wrong. I did say that some religious concepts (not all) are universally held moral principles that should be made law like murder, self-defense, etc. There is nothing wrong with making laws that reflect legitimate absolute moral principles. To reject them outright is to cause anarchy. Your continued mistake is that I wanted forced conversion of individuals. I ineffectually deny any forced conversion of any human being at any circumstance. The Inquisitions and Crusades taught mankind that there is no benefit to that procedure. I agree with you that forcing God unto people is wrong, but some concepts that are related to religions ought to be enforced as law (like murder, rape, abortion, etc.) since those concepts exist as universally held moral principles that exist beyond any one religion.
Alan Adaschik: I never said that people do not have a
responsibility and moral obligation to speak out against moral ills. All I said
was that those who use the law to eliminate moral ills are wrong in every
possible sense of the word. For example, I am pro-choice and against abortion.
This being the case, if I was a legislator, I would speak out against abortion
anytime I could. However, while doing so, I would still vote to keep abortion
legal. By voting to keep abortion legal, I am not voting to approve abortion.
What I am doing is voting to allow people to decide for themselves if they wish
to have an abortion or not.
Response: Yes, we have a right to speak out against moral ills. Some extremists (I’m not talking about you) want me and people like me to be censored from speaking my views on issue. I’m not as much of an extremist as you think I am. I support civil rights and most of my family is Democrats. It’s just that an experience happened when I was in high school leading me to be conservative on social issues. We ought not to use laws to eliminate moral ills???? Wow. I hope you considered what you’ve said, Alan. Many laws exist today that forbid moral ills like banning slavery, women’s suffrage, civil rights unto all people, disability rights, etc. They involve moral ills, so there is nothing wrong neither extremist about laws banning moral ills. I’m pro-life and wish Roe v. Wade would be abolish since it’s a federal government take over of the lives of people. Not to mention that it’s a violation of the Constitution, which forbids taking of life without due process of law. Roe v. Wade was about creating the word “privacy” as a fiat to include killing babies.
To me, it’s murder and I would never vote for it. It’s the intentional killing of unborn human life. Even some extremists want to not even promote really banning partial birth abortion, which you know that 60% of the American people support the partial birth abortion ban. Some people think that Bush’s partial birth abortion ban is a fraud and the evidence validates that. The Nebraska court canned it with Bush doing nothing about it. He used the law to gain votes. I don’t wish people to do crime, so I won’t vote for criminal activities. Abortion is a crime against humanity as set forth in the Nuremberg War Crimes tribunal plus it’s genocide. To be anti-abortion and pro-choice is morally baffaling and hypocritical, because you want abortion to continue.
Alan Adaschik: I know, like most fundamentalists, your reaction
to the above comments are that abortion is murder and what about the rights of
the fetus you killed which is a person in every sense of the word. My response
to this is that abortion is only murder if you consider a fetus to be a person.
The issue being, when does a fetus become a person? I do not have an answer to
this question and in truth nobody else does either. This being the case, you can
consider the fetus to be a person at conception as pro-life people do or
consider the fetus to be a person at some other point in the fetus’ development;
the most extreme view being at first breath. If most Christians hold the view
that a fetus is a person at birth and most other people hold that a fetus
becomes a person at some other point in its development, then deciding this
issue is a matter of personal conscience or the religious belief’s of the
individual.
Response: Abortion is murder since it’s the taking of innocent human life. The fetus is a person, regardless of your agnostic beliefs. Years, I’ve researched this abortion issues and the fetus isn’t a person is one of the most common arguments that pro-choice advocates use to justify the crime of abortion. Many well known scientists have proven that life begins at conception. These scientists are Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman, Dr. McCarthy de Mere, and Dr. Alfred Bongiovanni. Scientifically at conception, the entity has its own genetic code, has its own elaborate DNA, etc. denoting personhood. Don’t shutter and deny it because of its size. See, there are one-celled organism that are beings, so just because entities are finite in size doesn’t eliminate their personhood friend. As for religion, there are tons of Bible verses denoting unborn life’s personhood. Breath is eliminated here since that refers to Adam and Eve.
The Bible says that God is the author of life and that there is life in the blood. You can see that in the Scriptures, God gives personhood qualities to the unborn: http://dianedew.com/abortion.htm and http://www.abortiontv.com/Lies%20&%20Myths/AnswersToProChoice.htm#The%20Fetus%20is%20part%20of are links given a simple outline of the life of the unborn. Alan, aren’t you forgetting that it’s a sin to shed innocent blood. The unborn babies are innocent and we’re aren’t to kill it. We judge life not on it’s stage of development, but on its origin. By 42 days, the skeleton is formed and the brain is controlling the movement of the muscles and organs. After the first trimester, nothing new develops or begins functioning. The child only grows and matures. I don't even know that you even advocte abortion in the 2nd or 3rd Trimester when the child is totally developed and ready to be concieved. To advocate even is that is beyond sick, but cruel.
Alan Adaschik: There’s the quandary, as a Christian legislature
how do I vote on the issue of abortion? Do I vote my conscience which tells me
that abortion is murder or do I properly do my job as a legislator and vote to
allow people to decide for themselves? There is no easy answer to this question
and that is why the topic of abortion is so volatile. From my perspective, if a
fellow legislator believed abortion was murder and voted to outlaw it, I, in
good, conscience I would not condemn him for not doing his job improperly, even
though he did. However, personally, I would vote to keep abortion legal because
I believe the right for others to decide such matters for themselves is sacred
and because place a very high value on life when at a time in the development of
our species when new births are a threat to those of us already here.
Response: I vote my conscience which is the Freedom of conscience and the freedom of speech. If you deny someone their conscience, you deny their right of free speech in the ballot box. I don’t support that for anyone. I vote for Life. There is no quandary. I support moral absolutes and universally held-moral principles. Since abortion violates the Constitution and is morally heinous, I'll support any legislator who seeks its total outlaw. All societies embrace univerally-held moral principles and if any society wants torture, murder, abortion, anti-civil liberties, etc. then I’m not for that. A new birth is a threat to us here already??? That sounds like population control and eugenics. Sorry, I don’t play that game. Mike Ruppert and their ilk may subscribe to that, but I don’t. The world population have grown, but the world population’s total growth within decades have decreased in its percentage. Europe has almost no population growth and Russia and Japan are decreasing in their population. Only China and India are having massive population growth and even I don’t agree with forcibly killing people, because that’s against their right to conceive children.
Alan Adaschik: Individuals have every right to express their
views through the ballot box. However, this does not mean that elected
officials, even if they were elected because of their views have a right to vote
these views into law. They certainly can if they so choose. But as legislators
it is wrong for them to do so and if they do, the Courts should be the final
arbiter in the matter. I say “should” be because despite their commendable
action in the Terri Shiavo case, this nation’s court system is virtually
dysfunctional as far as constitutional issues are concerned.
Response: I know that individuals have every right to express themselves in the ballot box. Ever human being, even elected officals, have a right to follow God. If the government forces you to do something against your religious beliefs, then it’s your morally responsibility to rebel and resist the government by all peaceful means. If the government says take the Mark of the Beast, I will resist the government and not take it. I’m not even saying that we can do what we choose at all anyway. The courts today are corrupt and they are dysfunctional. Terri Schiavo is another example of how evil they are. That Judge Greer violated numerous Florida statues forbidding the intentioning killing or assisted suicide of a human being. By that alone, they are wrong. http://www.libertytothecaptives.net/ exposes this and more on the Terri/Scientology/N.W.O. connection.
Alan Adaschik: Please don’t be condescending and describe what
I believe as being truly sad because you truly do not comprehend what I believe.
I believe in God but I do not believe I am God. I also believe in my fellow man,
but refuse to let my fellow man come between me and my relationship with God. I
also believe that while is its okay for me to tell my fellow man what I believe,
it is wrong from me to expect others to accept my beliefs as theirs and I
believe it is unconscionable beyond words for me to force my beliefs upon others
through civil law. When government makes a law, it is enforced through the
barrel of a gun. Is your view of God and his kingdom so perverted that you
really believe that you and your kind should impose your will on people by
arresting them and putting them in jail? If it is, then you say you love God,
but really serve Satan. Jesus did not advocate putting people in jail who did
not agree with him and in fact, would bitterly condemn those who would do such a
thing to lowest bowels of hell. I cannot emphasize this enough; those who would
play God and legislate morality are doing Satan’s bidding and will be condemned
by God.
Response: I’m not condescending on anyone, but I’m outlining reality. I know what you believe in. I truly comprehend what your agenda is all about and please don’t try to call innocent conservative Christians ignorant. Please don’t try to use typical arguments to stipulate or cover up the total truth. I’m too wise for that. I believe in God, but I never believed that I’m God at all. Again, I never advocate forcing theocratic religion in civil law and I do believe in freedom of religion. This is typical of you. Never do I advocate using laws by the gun or impose my will onto every human being. I support making laws that reflect the principles of right to life, self-defense, civil rights, voting rights, civil liberties, anti-torture, freedom of religion, etc. All of these principles are globally accepted, universally held principles that exist among all government regardless of religion.
I don’t demonize those with strong faith and I have the instinct to defend Bible-Believers unlike the President who doesn’t know how to defend his policies. My view of God is executing justice, speaking out, praying, and living a righteous life. I don’t agree with rape, yet people who agree with rape and carry it out are put in jail. I don’t agree with pedophilia from NAMBLA, but NAMBLA is regularly censored from the Net and those who agree and act in it are put in jail. In some instances, I do agree that believe who disagree with me and act in criminal behavior ought to be put in jail. I don’t believe that people who disagree with me alone should be put in jail and to imply it is being a liar. Jesus’ first coming was about making the New Law. It's interesting to note that Jesus Christ supported the death penalty and commanded marriage between one man and one woman. Alan, you've failed to mention that. He wasn’t a judge in his first coming plain and simple. In his second coming, he will be a judge and sentence those to the Lake of Fire forever who are sinners and those who don’t repent before that. That’s the difference. That trick doesn’t work Alan. Those who compromise their faith are doing Satan’s work. Those who promote genocide against their fellow human being are doing Satan’s work. A theocrat is doing Satan’s work in my eyes since the Bible forbids this. I don’t know what you’re getting at, but I’m not a theocrat.
Alan Adaschik: Truthseeker. In God’s name I say to you, you are
free to practice your religion. You are free to try to convince other that your
religion is the one true religion. You are free to damn and condemn others for
not believing as you do. But you are not free to force your views upon anyone
through the barrel of a gun. God will condemn to hell for so doing even if you
keep your own hands clean and elect someone to do your dirty work for you.
Response: I applaud your warning, but sorry I don’t take God’s name in vain. Yes, I’m free to practice my faith, try to convert people. If someone doesn’t believe as I do, they ought to be damned if they don’t repent before death. Christ said I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and no man cometh unto the Father but by me. If you deny that, you call Christ a liar. Again, I don’t advocate forcing beliefs by a gun. God will condemn murderers, liars, and other deviants to Hell if they don’t repent. I don’t care how long you write your comment, because the Truth still reigns and secular fundamentalism isn’t an option. I don’t care if you write 15 pages of a response since God still loves innocent life. Hands that shed innocent blood is a sin. Universally held moral principles aren’t related to a theocracy at all and you fail to see that. Like always, I agree with you on a lot of issues and not on others. The Bible says to speak up against evil in the world and not support and allow evil to come unchallenged. I trust man's power to fight evil than compromise. I hope you wake up. I like this healthy debate since it keeps my juices flowing and it gives people the right to see different points of view and make up their own minds of us and the world. That's the good thing of this discussion. I like debates and discussions.
Links backing up my position:
http://www.apfn.org/APFN/TERRI.HTM
http://www.libertytothecaptives.net/scientology_vs_terri_schindler_schiavo.html
http://www.libertytothecaptives.net/terri_died_illegal_court_order.html
http://www.libertytothecaptives.net/for_the_life_of_terri_schiavo.html
http://www.fight4terri.com/main/
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Disturbing%20Truths/terri_schiavo-tortured_to_death.htm
By TruthSeeker24
VIRGINIA
7 CITIES
NORFOLK
PORTSMOUTH
HAMPTON
CHESAPEAKE
NEWPORT NEWS
SUFFOLK
VIRGINIA BEACH
Email: truthseeker24736587@yahoo.com
No comments:
Post a Comment