Election tomorrow - CHOOSE LIFE

[corlegacy89]

There is always lots of talk about social injustice around the world. Well, the fact is, there is a huge injustice in OUR OWN COUNTRY - the killing of millions of babies every year.

Luke 12:23 - "...Life is more than food and the body more than clothing"

How can the sanctity of life not take precedence over economic issues or even issues of poverty?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kri8G-lGYfg

Please vote responsibly tomorrow by looking at the issues, not just listening to pep rallies or speeches. Many people I know have been drawn in because of rhetoric, without knowledge of what their candidate really stands for.

[stechen]

I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiment, but I would also argue that the way to truly create a "culture of life" is not quite that simple.

[stechen]

I feel I should elaborate rather than just reject.

First off, I want to clarify that I can see where you're coming from, and why you feel so strongly about this issue. This is not specifically aimed at Cory per se - rather, it is to anyone reading. I want to thank you for participating in this discussion; something we have unfortunately had too little of. While I affirm your stance of being against abortion, I cannot in good conscience vote for John McCain, because of his own immoral choices in the past. I believe morality is something that must be seen in a broader sense, not simply in isolated issues that one may happen to care more about.

I feel it is very dangerous for Christians to give McCain their unabashed approval simply based on his stance on this one issue (not that you necessarily came to your conclusion that easily), especially when his personal life has not been consistent with scripture. I choose instead to support the man who has been a faithful husband (as far as I can tell), has promised to end this immoral occupation (which the Catholic Church, a very pro-life organization in general has also condemned), and is going to try and curb terrorism not simply via killing, but by encouraging dialogue and understanding - two valuable Christian principles.

The research has shown that perhaps paradoxically, whenever America has had a pro-choice President the number of abortions has decreased. This could be attributed to a variety of different factors, be it comprehensive sex education or increased emphasis on higher education or reduction of poverty. At any rate, I strongly believe that you do have to look at more than intentions - that results *do* matter.

I have read as much as I can about both candidates, and examined their records. I have painstakingly gone through nasty lies about the candidates, reading up on them to see if they were actually true. When there were sidewalk chalkings about Obama being in favor of infanticide, I was shocked - but rather than take it at face value, I decided to read up on the issue. I went through Obama's records in Illinois, where there are transcripts available that detail his rationale, and what exactly the bill he voted against said. And it turns out that surprise - he was *not* in favor of killing babies after they had been born.

This is one example - I point it out not necessarily because you believe it - but I know Christians who do, including some that I respect. This is something that inaccurately skews their perceptions and thus their decisions. As a Christian, I am deeply saddened that we are so willing to believe the worst of a fellow brother - there are reasons not to vote for a candidate, but perceptions based off of distortions and lies are not the way to go. This is not to say that there has not been unjustified mud flung in McCain's direction, but I have noticed that overwhelmingly it has gone in one direction.

I am at peace with my decision, and I hope you all will be too.

[zhangshunyu]

I too am against abortion, but I would echo Fred Bailey's suggestion to look at more than just a candidate's beliefs and just single issues. There is no guarantee that a pro-life president can do much to reverse the legality of abortion against the current institutions and ideas in this country. The government is far bigger than one man, even the president. Also, other issues like the economy, environment, etc., all contribute to a "culture of life." Abortion may be the most obvious and quantifiable problem, but it should not be the sole deciding factor.

While political discussion is not banned on these forums, it is dangerous territory and we all must proceed with caution. Emotion and controversy will undoubtedly run high, but it is important to remember that we are brothers and sisters, and though we may have differing opinions, we need to respond out of love and understanding. It is not proper to criticize others simply for being a Republican or a Democrat. God is neither a Republican or a Democrat, and neither party's views completely reflect Biblical values. This is not a battle of good vs. evil, we are all on the side of good.

Policies and laws do little to change people's hearts. This is not a Christian country, and I believe that it is against the free will that God has blessed us with to try and make it one. I would encourage everyone to vote for the candidate that you believe will work the best for the welfare of this country, whomever that is and however you choose to determine that. But remember, the government is not the church and the president is not a savior. "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." (Mat 22:21). Our lives are what belongs to God, and He has called us to care for the hearts of all people. I may be a minority in this, but I did not make my choice based primarily on which candidate best reflects my religious beliefs, but rather on who I feel will best serve and guide our country. I'm not electing a pastor, I'm electing a president. Neither Obama or McCain is going to ignite a spiritual revival if they are elected. God is so much bigger than politics, and his calling for our lives remains the same, no matter who is elected.

One final thought, I would encourage all of us, especially when dealing with controversial issues, to choose our words very carefully, and if necessary, hold our tongues.

[vaneckb]

In case you don't want to read my whole post, which is long and
somewhat ranting, the election in my oppinion comes down to this:

Obama will do what he thinks the majority wants him to
McCain will do what he thinks is right

I don't know about you, but I prefere a president who is guided by a
moral compass to one who is guided by opinion poles. In the end
however, I must agree with zhangshunyu and add my own thought, the only
one that really probably matters in this whole post, and that is that
God is in control, and he is the one who gives our leaders authority.
No matter what the president may or may not do he can never eradicate
evil and more then he can destroy God, but I do have to disagree on one
thing, God can work through any man in any position. If God chose to
send us a president and chose to work a revival through him he could do
so, and he would not have to violate our country's principle of freedom
of religion or the idea of free will. Sadly there was a time when
America was proud to be a Christian nation, not everyone was, and the
government didn't force people to be Christians, but we were still
proud to know that we were surrounded by others who followed God, and
willing to tell the world that we are free to believe whatever we want
and we believe in God almighty and Jesus Christ our savior. It saddens
me that most Christians I meet in America are ashamed to admit to being
a follower of Christ.

There are many points I agree with that you mentioned Steven. First
thing, I don't mean to offend anyone, I'm simply stating my opinion and
the information I know, so please nobody take anything I say as an
insult. We need to look more closely at both candidates than just a
single issue and we need to be careful and do our research and not just
believe what everyone has told us. One thing I don't agree on, in my
view the mudslinging has gone both ways equally, perhaps you haven't
seen as much of it for one particular candidate, but I have seen it go
both ways, and all of it complete and utter foolishness. Also I have to
say that I don't think McCain is advocating that we forget about
diplomatic solutions to problems and just kill everyone who disagrees
with us, rather he is saying that military force IS an option, and must
be used sometimes. If you disagree then I cite WWII, when the allies
carried diplomacy and "understanding" to such lengths that by the time
they stood strong the result was one of the worst wars in the history
of the world and Germany arrogant and powerful enough to commit some of
the worst attrocities to it's own people. If you still disagree I cite
the flood, and you can't argue that one. I think McCain is much more
likely to draw the line in the sand and stand strong, and Oboma is most
likely to have all the newspapers print "peace in our time"
As far
as claiming that it is ok if Obama is Pro-choice because statistically
that results in lower abortions, I'm not inclined to see how that makes
it ok to condone infaticide. Yes I am saying that Obama has no
objection to infanticide, not because of some bill he voted on, but
because he is pro-choice. It is utter foolishness to find some
arbitraily based point and claim that before that it's not really a
baby. If you want to claim the, could it survive on it's own, rought,
well I claim that a child probably can't survive on it's own untill
it's at least two or three years old. What immoral occupation are you
refering to? Iraq? if so that makes no sense, was it immoral to stop a
dictator from killing people? was it immoral to stick around and risk
our own lives while they get their DEMOCRATIC government set up? and we
haven't made things worse, despite the media making you think so. More
people die from gang related violence in chicago every month than die
due to terrorist and US military activity in all of Iraq each YEAR. If
you still claim we shouldn't be there, well that's a UN issue, not a US
issue. Once again the media doesn't do a good job explaining, but the
operation is a UN operation. the US is the biggest part because we are
the ones willing to actually back the UN. And we invaded because Iraq
failed repeatedly, over and over again, to stop attempting to produce
Nuclear weapons, no they didn't have them yet like we thought, but it
doesn't really matter, the point was they refused to follow a UN
ultimatum, and for once the UN actually came through with force.

The important issues are: Obama is pro-choice, (which in my opinion
makes him pro-infanticide) Which indicates to me poor moral judgement,
or at the very least a willingness to comprimise morals for the sake of
politics. McCain has significant military and political experience and
at least appears willing to stand up for what is good and right, even
if it means fighting for it, Obama on the other hand has very little
relavent experience, and from all appearances seems willing to
compromise any moral or political issue to gain popularity and
political power. (I think McCain will do what he thinks is right, Obama
will do what he thinks is popular)

Anyway, that was long and rambling, sorry about that. I welcome your
thoughts and oppinions, even (in fact especially) if you disagree with
me (assuming you have good solid reasons for your opinions), and I
sincerely apologize if I offended anybody.

[corlegacy89]

I really agree with Ben's post (hit the nail right on the head), along with points from the other two posts. But I don't really have time to go into all that right now (i shouldnt really be on the forums...work to do...)
But just wanted to say and clarify that I believe that we as Christians shoudl be passionate about saving lives wherever they're at risk, whether it be abortions in the US or genocide in Africa. We're all made in God's image and are equally loved by Him so of course we need to care about these lives equally.

And another thing. I'm not going to automatically call Obama or McCain my brother in Christ just because they claim it. I'm not going to make a judgment the other way either, but both have had questionable backgrounds...ask me via message or something if you wanna know what. But I agree with Spencer that we're not electing a pastor, we're electing the president. And I combine that with Ben's idea that we should elect someone guided by a moral compass and not by popularity.

And Christian or not, I believe McCain is the man who will do the better job of leading our country- morally, economically, etc.

[zhangshunyu]

Just because John McCain does what he thinks is right, doesn't make it actually right. The president is an elected public servant, which means he had better take the people's opinion into account, deciding with logic and against his own moral compass, which frankly, you can argue that both candidates have strengths and deficiencies.

I am also getting very tired of people saying that pro-choice = pro-infanticide. I get that if you look at the procedure itself that's what it boils down to, but you shouldn't just look at that. I will state again that I am against abortion, but I recognize it is not a black and white issue. If you look at just the baby, you ignore the mother, who may not be ready for a child, who is suffering the social stigma if she's a pregnant teen, who may be disowned by her parents, who cannot support a child financially or emotionally, who may be contemplating suicide, who may try to abort the baby herself or go to an illegal, unsanitary, untrained abortion clinic. Some will argue that it is the parents' consequence for engaging in sex, as if we were all mature and wise when we were young and as if we do not all struggle with lust. These women are our sisters, should we not care for their lives as well? I'm not saying I have an answer for this issue or that a perfect solution exists, but it's not as easy as ban abortions or allow them. And please stop calling people 'baby-killers,' it's an ignorant and hateful term.

Also, I don't think the forums is a place for ranting. Ranting, by definition, is done out of anger, and even if it's the good type of anger (i.e. anger at injustice), it's probably not done in a loving or understanding manner. When I'm writing these posts, it usually takes a while because when I feel myself becoming overwhelmed with emotions, I get up, walk around for a bit, calm down, and think about what I am going to write, so I can try and do it respectfully. If you feel yourself ranting, please do not post it, we can all understand your frustration, but it will probably offend people, which will lead to more anger and hate, which will lead to the Dark Side, just kidding, kind of.

[zhangshunyu]

Sorry, just a couple more things to clarify. First of all, Ben is absolutely right, if He so chooses, God could ignite a spiritual revival through McCain or Obama, though it's not something I'm expecting. Second, when I refer to 'life,' I mean it more than just the scientific, physiological fact of your body being alive, to also use Luke 12:23, it's more than food, it's your relationship with God and one another. So, when I talk of 'saving lives,' I mean not only from physical death, but also spiritual death.

[vaneckb]

First I wanted to say that I am not trying to insult, blame, or imply stupidity. I believe that you all have your oppinions and have reasons for those opinions. Occasionally I think your wrong and so I try to introduce you to some of the reasoning which allows me to arive at what I believe is the correct conclusion. Also by no means am I claiming I am always right. In this particular case I have researched and discussed these ideas fairly thouroughly with people on both sides of the issues, and more importantly I have prayed over them and asked God for his guidence, so I'm fairly confident in my conclusions, but if you feel I'm wrong please tell me why, maybe I am.

Look zhangshunyu the life issue comes down to this. I can see no way of justifying making an arbitrary "at this point it's ok" judgement as to when a child really has "life" therefore in my opinion to kill a one month old fetus is exactly the same as to kill any other person. From my perspective all those excuses you listed are just that, excuses, basically the child is an inconvenience to the mother, so that gives her a right to kill it? From that perspective you could argue that it'd be ok for me just to go kill you. you know it's inconvenient that you disagree with me, and the social stigma associated with being pro-life is pretty negative sometimes. Do those excuses make that a grey issue too? (I have no desire to harm anyone of course, just trying to make a point, I really do encourage you to voice your opinion) calling it by nice names like pro-choice and abortion is a way to make people feel like it's not really such a bad thing. I'm not trying to say people who had abortions are evil, on the contrary we all make mistakes and I don't feel my sins are any less offensive to God, but making murder of unborn infants out to be a grey issue is a mistake, it is a sin like any other and therefore is a simply black and white issue. If you wish to convince me otherwise you would have to convince me you can, from both a biblical and scientific perspective, determine that there is a point AFTER conception at which the baby comes alive and gets a soul. Otherwise no amount of reasoning makes it a grey issue. it is simple, murder is a sin. That doesn't mean there aren't rare situations when it would be the only acceptable course of action, for example if the baby was dying and the only way to save the mother was to perform an abortion, that type of thing, but that is triage, and pro-life has no objection to that. No the president isn't the one to solve that issue, it's the moral issue of the entire country, but that's not really my point, my point is this issue tells me alot about each candidates character and what things are important to him.

I really disagree about the president following public oppinion instead of doing what he thinks is right. I would never ever want a president who was willing to do something that he believed was immoral or wrong simply because the public said to. If you want a president who would do that, then I completely understand why you would vote for Obama, because I suspect he would. I simply disagree with what the president should be.

I would also like to point out one final thing, I don't actually like either candidate. I feel both have strong moral failings and are too willing to compromise the issues that really matter. I feel that McCain is a better candidate for the reasons I stated above and many more, but I don't necessarily think that Obama will be a bad president. I think they both honestly want what is best for the country, it's just that I feel McCain understands what that would be better than Obama does. I actually have a lot of problems with McCain as president, but it comes down to choosing the best man from the options we have been given, and I believe that that is McCain. There will always be things we disagree with any candidate we have, which is why for me it comes down to knowing McCain will do what is right even if the cost to his own political power is high.

One quick thought on the war. For all the flack Bush gets about it, it was the decision of congress, and it was the right moral decision. I always new it was going to end up being unpopular, and I am willing to bet Bush did too. He was willing to do what he thought was right even knowing there probably would be political consequences and that earns him a lot of points in my book. America and the American people have the economic and military power to stop so many of the atrocities that occur throught the world every day, if we just had the backbone to stand up for what is right. When the American people decide to do something, to help someone, we can do so much, but we are too afraid of what people will think, whether other countries will like us. We are so quick to stand up for our own rights to life and to freedom, but we could care less about the rights and freedoms of others, and I think it is time that changed. Why don't we care that the Christians in China are persecuted? Why don't we care that the people there aren't free? We admire China, respect them, we send them billions of dollars in trade, buy their products every day, work closely with them on a million issues, and turn a blind eye to the horrible stories that come out of it every day.

[vaneckb]

One quick thought on ranting. Look at the life and ministry of Jesus. Much of what he did angered many people. consider the story of how he overturned the money changers tables in the temple and drove them all out. Or how he called the Pharisees a brood of vipers. I am not going to curb my words for fear of angering people. It is not my intention to do so, but I will say what I believe is right and good. If that angers people so be it, I take that as a sign I'm doing a good job. God never said that serving him would be easy, indeed I would have to take a hard look at what I believed if I didn't feel that there were people who hated me for it. I'm not out to make people feel good, I'm far more concerned with their eternal souls. I don't call abortion infanticide to make people feel bad. I do it because it is wrong, and I will make no concesions for it and I will not make it easier to do by calling it something that doesn't sound as evil. It is sin and it is wrong. period. You SHOULD be convicted and "feel bad" if you have commited such a sin and not repented and asked the lord forgiveness. I make no apologies for people feeling bad when I say what is right. If you have been forgiven then it is over and done, just as any other sin we have committed throughout our walks with the lord.

[stechen]

I would argue that ultimately our unilateral invasion did more bad than good. Ben, I feel you're conflating an unpopular decision with a correct one. I'd actually like to discuss Iraq with you, but perhaps in a separate thread.

My point here regarding your last two posts is that angering people in of itself doesn't mean you're necessarily doing it a good job. Obviously, it doesn't necessarily mean you're doing a bad job either. So for example, whether or not Bush's decision to invade was good or not should be determined on the results, rather than whether or not people like it.

Regarding the topic of life beginning at conception, here's a practical issue that I am concerned/curious about - what sort of punishment would you seek for women and their doctors who perform abortions? Life imprisonment? Death Penalty? Part of the issue is what sort of practical measures we as a society should take. Given that fetuses could be considered the weakest and most helpless of us all, that would probably be a decision that justifies the death penalty moreso than anything else.

And for clarification, you could say that I am sort of playing Devil's Advocate here to make a point. I am enjoying this discussion despite significant differences we have because I really like to learn about how people make their decisions - what they see as important, and I guess in the context of being part of a fellowship, what sort of role Christianity plays into this. Thanks for keeping it going.

[vaneckb]

I am glad you aren't taking me too seriously, I am enjoying the discussion, and I mean the it to be exactly as you described and I agree completely with you last sentiment.

As far as the practical issue of punishment, obviously if the government does anything, they can't punish people for doing it in the past, there's a cool latin term for that, but it evades me at the moment, but the government isn't allowed to do that, nor am I saying they should. However in my oppinion any further examples should be treated exactly the same as any other first degree (premeditated) murder. In this case the doctor would be the murder, and the woman who seeks it the acomplice, or conspirator. Since I believe it IS murder there is no difficulty in my mind with what kind of punishment to use, it is the same as for murder. The question of the death penalty, well that is just the question of: is the death penalty the way we should go in murder cases. I don't know, and to be honest I'm not entirely sure I care life imprisonment vs death penalty. Although I think the bible supports the death penalty if people think it's sinful, and they do, I'm perfectly happy with life imprisonment or other forms of punishment.

I'm not sure I understand why you feel the Iraqi war was/is immoral. It would be great if you could explain, but I suppose that is where our disagreement stems in that regard. I agree unpopular doesn't mean right, but my point was unpopular doesn't mean wrong either, and since in my oppinion the Iraqi war has been an overwelmingly good thing for both the iraqi's and the rest of the world I give Bush character credit for supporting and continuing to support it after it became unpopular. Naturally if you believe the war was and is wrong, then Bush screwed up, and continues to support an immoral war despite public pressure, but I don't see why you would believe that.

Your point on angering people was precisely what I was trying to say, although it might not have come out as well, except I would add one thing: I really believe that if you are doing God's will there will be people who are dead set on trying to stop you, so the condition of people despising you is, in my estimation, necessary, but not sufficient to knowing you are doing God's will (how to know if your doing God's will is a totally unrelated discussion). I just mean I will not hold back the truth for fear of offending people, not that I desire to offend people (therefore I will not say abortion, when I believe infanticide and murder are more accurate and revealing terms).

Now if you provide biblical evidence to suggest that I am wrong and have made people angry over something that is not wrong then I will sincerely apologize and ask your forgiveness and never say such things again, but I haven't just made this oppinion from thin air or based on what people tell me, but rather based on the bible and praying to God for guidance, and I choose to stand up for what God has revealed to me through his word until such time as someone (probably God) shows me I have been deceived.

[Boomerwang]

First of all, good discussion. It is heartening to see people exercise discretion where you feel it necessary, particularly as it pertains to sensitivities you have for your fellows - I think that discretion and self-restraint in the face of anger is wonderful when the sensitivity is toward the edification of others (it is quite a different story when the sensitivity in question comes from a lack of self-confidence or self-conviction).

I think what was being mentioned earlier was more this, than to try and leave anger out of the equation. Instead, we should always recognize that frustration and anger are natural responses to divergent viewpoints; nevertheless, while we can use them to fuel our passion, compassion, or other sentiments which become a source of energy with which we can genuinely respond to the topic at hand, we must always be wary of allowing them to become the dominant factor in the words we use to reply. In this way, I view reactionary emotions such as anger and frustration as tools, as means to an end. So in the end, the words that come out of our mouths (or fingers in this case) should be influenced by such emotions, which lend them strength - but they should not be solely composed of such emotions.

In the end, I agree with what Spencer was saying about getting up and walking around, because that is just as much an act of love as it is to sit here and write from the (angry) heart in an honest and genuine manner. In a manner of speaking, both can be edifying because both can embody the respect our community strives for.


In any case, I hope this discussion continues. I personally would encourage you all to use this as a grand opportunity to get to know each other better on a personal level - it goes without saying that none of us are going to change each others' worldviews through a mere forum conversation - that kind of work is for the Holy Spirit to accomplish.

In addition to thoughtfully debating the surface topics at hand (with professionalism, seriousness, and a grain of salt [spiritual fruit] as well), I would encourage you to dive deeper in with each other - get to know each other through Private Messaging and asking about how some of your personal views may have been shaped by your upbringing, influences, aspirations, experiences, nature/nurture, and so forth. And in the end, make the conscious decision to love, respect, uphold, and defend each other as brothers in Christ, with a spirit of harmony, humility, and support, despite your disagreements.

After all, Jesus put it best: "Where's the merit in loving lovable people? You don't have to be a Christian to do that. The real merit comes in not just loving those kinds of people, but loving the unlovable as well."

[stechen]

As far as the practical issue of punishment, obviously if the government does anything, they can't punish people for doing it in the past, there's a cool latin term for that, but it evades me at the moment, but the government isn't allowed to do that, nor am I saying they should. However in my oppinion any further examples should be treated exactly the same as any other first degree (premeditated) murder. In this case the doctor would be the murder, and the woman who seeks it the acomplice, or conspirator. Since I believe it IS murder there is no difficulty in my mind with what kind of punishment to use, it is the same as for murder. The question of the death penalty, well that is just the question of: is the death penalty the way we should go in murder cases. I don't know, and to be honest I'm not entirely sure I care life imprisonment vs death penalty. Although I think the bible supports the death penalty if people think it's sinful, and they do, I'm perfectly happy with life imprisonment or other forms of punishment.

Fair enough - so long as you are aware of the implications of this policy being put into place.

I'm not sure I understand why you feel the Iraqi war was/is immoral. It would be great if you could explain, but I suppose that is where our disagreement stems in that regard. I agree unpopular doesn't mean right, but my point was unpopular doesn't mean wrong either, and since in my oppinion the Iraqi war has been an overwelmingly good thing for both the iraqi's and the rest of the world I give Bush character credit for supporting and continuing to support it after it became unpopular. Naturally if you believe the war was and is wrong, then Bush screwed up, and continues to support an immoral war despite public pressure, but I don't see why you would believe that.

I will gladly explain - I just didn't want to in this thread because I felt it would probably take us a bit off course away from the original topic. So, I opened a new thread here on it, and I explain my reasons for believing it was and is wrong.

https://umivcf.forum.st/general-f37/iraq-discussion-t153.htm#486

[zhangshunyu]

In regards to anger, I would caution comparing ourselves to Jesus. He had every right to be angry, He is God. How much do we have a right to be angry at others for their sins, given our own sinful natures? Anger can be used for good, but it is a dangerous emotion that is not always justified and that we cannot always separate from hate. I am encouraging us to take the time to make sure that our words are not written out of spite, which often times, the first thing that pops into our heads is. God himself is "slow to anger and abounding in love." Anger should be a last resort, understanding and love must come first. I would also echo Steven's caution, that just because people are angry, doesn't mean that it's right or wrong. Often times, it's the way the message is delivered, more than the content, that inflame people. The Diag preacher angers a lot of people, and he is factually correct, but it is not complete, where is the love? Calling people "pro-infanticide" angers people, it is factually correct, but it is also not complete, where is the love? We all know people that support abortion, what is in their hearts? Are they people who enjoy killing babies? No, they are people that prioritize the rights of the mother above the rights of the child. Are they misguided? Yes. Are they evil? No. The label of "pro-infanticide" is a term of condemnation, there is no love or understanding. Abortion is a choice, the government is not forcing anyone to do it, I would rather work to change cultural norms and have people choose not to get an abortion, than just to ban it, as if that solves the problem.

I also object to gross oversimplification and trivialization of my points for trying to understand the plight of a teenage mother. To reduce my argument to simply a baby being an "inconvenience" or comparing the social stigma of being pro-life to that of being pregnant is frankly, a little offensive.

[corlegacy89]

I don't agree with that. Why wouldnt we compare ourselves to Jesus? We're called to be like him! We're called to be angry for the same things he is angry for - godlessness and injustice. And yet to hate the sin, not the sinner.

The thing is, I would rather save one baby's life than to be politically correct or to make sure people aren't offended. A human being who has been made in God's image is so precious. How are we going to change cultural norms? Rather than just talking about change. I don't know how it would happen, does anyone?

Banning it is what should be done. Do we legalize murder and say that we should try to work at the cultural norms rather than just ban it? No, because so many people get killed in the process, and there would be no consequences. And since the beginning of time, we still haven't been able to change the culture and have people choose not to murder.
As long as people are living in their sinful nature (in other words...until Christ returns), these problems will exist. In the mean time, God has placed authority over us to guide us and to keep our country safe. Murder is not an option.

As for when the mother's life is in danger: that accounts for less than 1/10th percent of abortions in America. Like McCain said, "for the health of the mother" has been stretched so far.

[vaneckb]

I'm very sorry if I upset you zhangshunyu, I did not mean to offend you
or insult your intelligence, as you clearly felt. I oversimplified the
reasoning you gave to a degree, but to make a point, which is: there is
no excuse. I have no doubt it is difficult on some mothers who are
having children for any number of reasons, and I am sympathetic.
However the solution is NEVER EVER to kill the unborn child Because I
believe it is no different than any other murder. I don't care how hard
it is, I don't care how difficult their lives might become, I don't
care if they will be outcast from all of society for the rest of their
lives. It is all irrelevent next to the life of the child. You claim it
isn't loving to say this, but is it really more loving to try to make
it sound like it's not a big deal to commit a sin? I don't mean to
imply that these people are evil, as I tried to state clearly, but
maybe failed to do, I think abortion is a sin. I don't hate people who
lie, but if I love God, I must hate sin, and I must hate that lie. I
don't think people who commit abortions are evil, they are mearly
sinful, and I hate that sin. If you are pro-choice you support a
mothers "right" to kill her unborn child, which is in my view exactly
the same as supporting a persions "right" to commit murder.If you don't
think the government should stop/punish murders than you can claim they
shouldn't stop abortions, but you can't have it both ways.

Despite all this I do agree that the government can't force it to stop
and more than they manage to stop murders and everything else and the
problem really comes back to our culture. McCain is not going to be
able to go in and just stop all abortions like that, my point was that
it is morally misguided to support abortion in any way. Thus I feel
Obama is moraly misguided, thus I feel he would not be a good
president. Is he evil because of this view, of course not, but I do not
want him to be president if he won't even stand for this, in my view,
straightforward moral issue.

In regards to Anger, I want to reiterate, I am not, nor have I ever
been angry at any of you, nor do I dislike you because you disagree
with me. I learn far more from those who disagree with me than from
those who agree with me, and just about the only way to gain my respect
is by being willing to stand up and say what you think, even if your
saying it to me. Sin angers me very much, and I believe that this is
both right and good, however I always try to be very careful not to let
that anger spill over towards the people involved. If you feel I am
condeming you rest assured I did not mean it that way.

In reference to Jesus and his anger, I think it is incredibly
dangereous to imply that there were things Jesus did that were ok for
him to do but not for us. Jesus was God, but he was also man, he had to
resist all the same temptations we have. God is good, therefore he must
hate evil, God is Just, therefore he must hate injustice, God loves the
truth, therefore he must hate lies. If I love God shouldn't I also love
the things he loves, and therefore hate the things he hates? Anger can
be dangerous if you lose control, hence why it is often a good idea to
take your time and think before you speak when you are angry, but sin
should anger you, and it is right and good that you get angry.

Yes, a person also needs love in what they do, but I think I disagree
with your idea of what love is. Suppose your friend likes to sing, and
they ask your opinion on their chances to be a professional, but they
don't have a very good voice. Is it love to tell them: "yeah
your pretty good, you could make it if you worked hard" or is it love
to tell the truth: that singing just isn't their talent? Even though
that might be hard for them to hear? It isn't love to make it sound
like it's not that bad to have an abortion, make it sound like it's not
so big a deal. It is love to tell them the truth, tell them how
horrible having an abortion really is, and how it is a sin that
separates us from God. It is something God hates, something that would
make him send us to the Hell we deserve if not for Christ's sacrifice
for us. If you truly wish to show someone love you must consider the
eternal consequences, for those are what really matter, so what if they
feel bad now, so what if they feel guilty, but they must realize that
they are truly hopeless, that nothing they can do can ever make up for
the horrible things they have done, without that they will never seek
God, for if they have hope in themselves who needs God. If sin isn't
really so bad, if we make up new words to make it sound ok, if we hold
our tounges when we should speak for fear of offending, that is when we
truly fail to show love. I pray every day that the lord will show me
how to serve him better, but it is always a struggle to do so because I
know I won't like it. It's not easy to admit how screwed up I can be,
how sinful I can be, it's the hardest thing I ever have to do, but if I
sit and justify what I'm doing, make up words so it doesn't sound so
bad, how can I become closer to God? The times I've thought, oh it's just a little white lie is one example of many. It was so hard to admit that that a lie is a lie, that those sins were every bit as bad in God's eyes as murdering someone or
stealing, but if I had gone through my life thinking to myself and
listening to everybody else say: "it's just a little white lie, it's
not that bad" I would never even try to stop myself from committing
that sin. I don't think I'm any better than any of those people out
there who had abortions, who justified it in one way or another, the
only thing I have that they don't is the Lord, and I desperately want
them to realize they need him too.

[Boomerwang]

I feel that anger is itself a dangerous emotion when experienced by humans, whether or not its source is righteous (despite righteous anger being understandable and agreeable to me). We are indeed called to be like Jesus, and He experienced anger Himself, as we know. In my view, however, these two aforementioned facts does not necessarily give us a license to exercise anger according to our discretion, or even what we may consider to be righteous anger. Why? My thought is that Jesus, human as He was, never had his anger running the risk of being tainted by sin*. In contrast, despite our calling to be like Christ and our striving toward that goal as we continue to live here on beautiful planet Earth, our anger - in fact, everything we do - is tainted by the brokenness wrought by sin. That is, our anger always runs the risk of being tainted by sin, and more often than not for us, it is, whether or not we are aware of it at the time. Righteous indignation, while technically right and good (I agree), simply makes it "too easy" for us to get carried away. If some of us do not, then that is my hope and it is a relief to know so. I will speak for myself when I say that I am not capable of such a feat. I mention "myself" because I am not trying to judge any of you of being incapable of "righteous anger" as well. However, in my honest opinion, I am initially skeptical. [This is an opinion I expect will be corrected as I get to know you all more]

In the end, I simply want to express my thought that we must be cautious, because I do not feel we can say that striving to be like Christ necessarily gives us unconditional authority under any circumstance to do some of things He has done in his human life. So as above discussions on this topic have referred to Christ's humanity as an explanation for allowing us to exercise some of the same behaviors and actions as He has, I refer to Christ's divinity (and our lack of it) as an explanation as to why we cannot.

In the end, I would like to share some additional thoughts with you all:

- I know more than a few friends whose parents tried to abort them.
- I once knew a young woman. She died in a stillborn childbirth.

I bring these up because obviously, they will influence the opinions, views and thoughts of the loved ones involved. I know this topic is a sensitive one for everybody, so once again I want to express my appreciation for all of you who show self-control for each others' sake. That to me speaks of the love we have for each other in a clear way. It is good for us to elaborate on our points and strive to engage in learning about each other, using topics such as these as a means to the end of learning more about each other, instead of backing away in unresolved frustration, and just leaving the potential bitterness where it is.

Thank you all for sharing your passions. I hope it will continue and that you guys might consider getting together for a meal or something. I imagine a political discussion over pancakes at IHOP would be quite edifying!


*Note: In reviewing my post I concede that this is a personal perception of Jesus that I have. No doubt some may believe that in His full humanity, Jesus had to resist temptation much in the same way we as God's children are called to, and that the difference between Him and us is that He was always successful and therefore never sinned.

[zhangshunyu]

This will be my last post and visit to this topic. I am also petitioning for its locking and/or deletion. Frankly, I feel like this is going nowhere. It's unfortunate because I feel like you have given me some things to think about, and written differently, I may be prepared to consider more, but I don't feel like I'm even being heard, other than so my views can be countered. Again, I am NOT supporting abortion. I am simply saying that there are many people out there that do, and the way we should approach them is not through anger and condemnation. Let's use the singing analogy, it's one thing to say, "Honestly, I don't think you're quite good enough for the music industry. I'm sorry, but I've seen other things that you're really passionate about, how can I help you pursue them?" and it's quite another to say, "You're terrible, how could you be stupid enough to think you could make it in the music industry?" just like it is one thing to say, "God has blessed the life of every human, making us in His own image, the child you are carrying is blessed and loved by God, and we have been called to care for and cherish him or her," and another to say, "You're an evil person, you're killing babies that's what you're doing, how could you ever think something like that would be right?" If they don't listen, you get stronger with your words, but you approach out of love and understanding, not quick to anger and ready to judge. That's not to say that you don't say the difficult things, but again, as a last resort.

I am curious as to why an abortion ban is seen as a magical cure all. It's not like murder in that nobody questions that murder is wrong, but there are many people in the world today that don't feel that abortion is wrong. I'm not saying they're right, in fact, I'm saying they're wrong, but banning abortion isn't going to suddenly make them think that abortion is wrong. Even if abortion is banned, does that solve the problem in people's hearts? Also I highly doubt that an abortion ban could even be passed in today's society, and even if it was, Democrats would repeal it the first chance they get. I would rather focus on trying to change cultural norms and people's hearts. What is the point of saving a physical life if a spiritual life is lost in the process?

I am also not saying that we shouldn't strive to be like Jesus, but he is God, which means there are things that only he has the power and authority to do. Jesus judged people and forgave them of their sins, can you or I do that? Anger is a dangerous emotion in that very often it gets out of control and becomes destructive. And I absolutely agree: hate sin, not the sinner. But then I don't know where people get off calling Obama, specifically, evil and pro-infanticide, that doesn't seem like hating the sin and not the sinner. We have no right to be angry at other people for their sins, given our own sinful natures. Sin is sin, God does not judge certain sins as greater than others. To follow God's example, in something that is actually possible for us to do, we should be slow to anger and abounding in love. And yes, Jesus was angry, he had every right to be, but the message of the gospel is not just that God was angry at us for our disobedience, rather that He demonstrated His unfathomable grace by dying for us and forgiving our sins. I simply cannot see grace in labeling people as "pro-infanticide." As for ranting, something I unfortunately struggle far too much with, it is a selfish act, it serves no purpose to educate, I am not trying to discuss something, I am merely telling you why I am right with no regard for who I hurt along the way. There is no time that I am more self-righteous or destructive than when I am ranting. Contrary to popular belief, there are ways to show passion and say difficult things without being nasty about it. It is not difficult to yell and scream at someone, it is far more difficult to address people that you disagree with in a calm, constructive manner. I have been trying to filter my thoughts, but I am not perfect, and it has been getting increasingly difficult, the more I feel I am being ignored. Do you realize how long we've been arguing when it was established early on that everyone here thinks that abortion is wrong?

Our main disagreement appears to be this idea that the end justifies the means, which I don't believe it does. Take the Diag preacher, his words are true: that we're all sinners that will go to hell, unless we repent. While his words may reach some, what is stronger, a faith born out of understanding God's love and wanting to be with Him or one born out of fear, guilt, and not wanting to go to hell? To that end, what is better, a mother that understands the blessing of life and wants to love her baby or one that was guilted and forced into having hers? Don't get me wrong, I want the baby to be born, but I also want it to be born into the first situation. What I am saying is the mother that was guilted can be reached with love also. It is not enough to simply get the result, no matter what the cost, no matter how many are turned off to Christianity as anger is being thrown at them. God has called us to higher, to love our neighbors as ourselves and to deliver the truth to them through love. Sometimes it is necessary to rebuke out of love, but never to judge with hate.

And with that, I am done with this. This topic has caused me far too much frustration and anger and has used up way too much of my time. I would caution people in how they approach subjects like this, considering that they can be very divisive and some people cannot leave their anger at the door, I am talking about myself. I also question the usefulness of having these discussions, if people are not open and willing to change their ideas. I would also caution that it was subjects like these and people's inflammatory responses to them that discouraged some people from using the forums last year. I am sorry if I offended you, I hope you understand that I have issues with anger and that it may have gotten the better of me. Please know that I still love you all as brothers. I believe that God's message is overwhelmingly one of love and not of anger, and I strive to live that out in my life.

[vaneckb]

Truly I am sorry you feel this way zhangshunyu. The truth is I agree with most of your points, and I feel perhaps my thoughts haven't come across clearly. This discussion has not evoked feelings of anger or hate in me, and I don't feel I have ranted in anger, all my words were chosed very carefully with the explicit intention of not being hurtful beyond what is necessary in order to speak the truth. I meant it to be and felt that it was a simple political discussion of what was best for the country. I do not judge Obama to be an evil man because he is pro-choice, indeed I truly do not think he is an evil man, rather I'm trying to say that when considering a person to lead I believe McCain has better judgement on this particular issue.

It truly saddens me that we can't discuss issues that we all care about without people feeling insulted. While I understand and agree with taking care in the words we say I think we fail to give people as much credit as they deserve. There are many things that were said in this thread from both sides of the discussion that I can interpret in a way that makes it a personal insult, but I choose to assume that whoever said it didn't mean it to be, no matter how it sounded, because I trust that all of you are trying to act in a Christlike manner towards me just as I do my best to act in a Christlike manner towards you. How can anyone claim that someone is being judgemental without being judgmental themselves? I assure you I was not being judgemental, why do you wish to assume that I feel hate or anger towards you or anyone else? I assured you several times that I did not. I was talking to a group of Christians so I believed that I could speak my oppinions without fear of people taking them as attacks and I'm very sorry to find that it is not so.

I will keep my posting from now on to practical matters and not to discussions. I found it enjoyable and enlightening, and it has helped me to better define and enhance my oppinions, but apparently others have felt differently, and if I can't be entirely honest and state my oppinions as I think them then I think it is better if I keep them to myself from now on. Thank you to all those who took the time to share your thoughts, I appreciate it. Again I apologize to anyone I may have offended, I truly did not mean to.

[Boomerwang]

My Closing Thoughts

First off, let me say that I am behind each of you 100%, as a friend and brother in Christ.

With that said, I want to express my enthusiasm and praise for this discussion having taken place.

In essence, I feel that these closing thoughts you two [Ben and Spencer] have provided contain the very spirit of the vision I had for discussions these forums.

As it is true that such topics as this one can evoke anger and frustration, let us not look to these kinds of discussions as the end to a means, but rather as an indicator (symptoms, if you will) of deeper issues. Or perhaps just indicators of improving - but as of yet inadequate - abilities to faithfully communicate how we truly feel inside.

In the end, I want to emphasize that I feel this discussion has been edifying and fruitful, despite the differences in viewpoints. The verbal clashes that took place pale in comparison to the display of character I witnessed in this discussion, even in the little things - the thoughtful length of your posts, the apologies, the clarification of feelings and thoughts behind the viewpoints themselves, and the strong continuation of dialogue, and the exercise of self-control out of love for each other. Some of you may not feel like giving yourselves this credit at this moment, but it is my hope that as your heart recovers from the pain you may have experienced here, that you will be renewed with joy, knowing that by keeping this discussion here for others to see, you will be an inspiration and motivation to others to always strive for Christlikeness during sensitive discussions.

To that end, I feel this topic has not been a waste of time, that this topic has been far from destructive. If anything, your closing posts are ample evidence of that, and speak for themselves.

Conclusion

With these things in mind, I have decided to lock this thread. I want to be clear that this is not because I do not support such discussions, heated or not. My locking this thread has to do with the belief that this dialogue has indeed run its course, because, looking back, it is evident that it has served its purpose for us as a community.

Like the Scriptural account of Ecclesiastes, this thread cannot properly inform us and encourage us if it is not read in its entirety. My hope to all of you who frequently visit the forums is that, sooner or later, you will have the opportunity to read through this entire dialogue, and despite the clashes that occurred, see the fruitfulness that has surfaced here.

It is not just a hunch I have that Christ-like love was exercised in this discussion. I personally witnessed the thoughtful deliberation of some of the involved parties, away from the computer, and their concerns very clearly showed their love and respect for their fellow members and opponents to their views. I know the individuals of both sides involved in this discussion, and I attest to their faithfulness and devotion to pursuing godliness and harmony with each other.

So I hope you will accept what I have to say on the subject, because it is not mere lip service to both sides. I am not concerned with being on good terms with everybody - rather my concern is that everyone be reconciled and move henceforth from this day as brethren united in faith and love.

My Two Requests

As a brother, it is my ardent prayer that those of you who participated in this discussion (and those of you who witnessed it as it unfolded) will not be discouraged, and rest assured that your honest and the time you spent posting was not a waste. God will use this thread to build up others who read it, and we have the joy of knowing that it may impact people whom we may never even hear about.

As an administrator, my hope is that when we continue discussions in the future, we will look back on discussions such as this one as an important learning experience, on how to exercise God-honoring love and character despite our different expressions of passion and views. I truly hope that this discussion will not discourage us from opening new topics of discussion and debate, but rather encourage it, especially when, in future discussions, we strive to continue practicing the principles of love, patience, gentleness, and self-control we have begun to learn here.

Address to Participants

Gentlemen, I deeply believe that you all displayed a little bit of Christ in this discussion, even in the little things - the thoughtful length of your posts, the apologies, the clarifications, the attempt and understanding each others' views, the desire to become more acquainted with each others' backgrounds, and more. I hope these words encourage you and edify you. I will be in prayer for those of us who were hurt by this discussion - may such pain be fleeting, and any anger disappear quickly and quietly like the morning dew.

Invitation

I invite all of us who have taken part in or witnessed this discussion as it unfolded, to discuss any questions, praises, worries, and other such thoughts that come to mind as a result of this thread.


Thank you all for reading.

[Sponsored content]