House defeats bill to ban gender-based abortions

[brightmorningstar]

Aspen2,
　

We are not called to love others just so that we can tell them about the gospel. We are called to love all people, regardless, because that is what we were created to do. God wants all people to be saved, but His love is not conditional

I never said we were called to love others just so we can tell them about the gospel. And that is faulty thinking as well as the gospel is to tell them about the gospel whilst demonstrating it at the same time.
The point I am making is it doesn’t matter how lovingly one may tell non-believers about the gospel, even whilst serving them, some reject it because of repentance. Of course others are convicted, praise God.

How often are we supposed to be feeling wretched?

No, I asked you a question, first answer my question please. How can we be worthless if Christ loved us so much to die for us? And surely we must be wretched for that to happen, after all Christ said without Him we can do nothing, without Him we perish, like branches cut off and burned in the fire. As to how often are we supposed to feel it, I guess once we know Christ we dont feel it because we know Christ, all we do is know that without Christ we are.

Well, I have been to a lot of churches and spoken with a lot of people.

Well so have I.

for the man's lust?

Nope, for the man’s lust the man would be responsible, the woman would be responsible for seducing as a prostitute.

Actually, I would not vote against abortion –

Ok I would. The solution is to educate people so that they no longer think abortion by choice is ok, we agree there, but the why not vote against it. Would you vote against ethnic cleansing? If its killing, its killing.

which does not affect me or harm society.

Ok so if you say you wouldn’t vote against pro-choice abortion then you must consider such killing of unborn children not harmful to society. How come? Its pretty harmful to the child.

I think this is a reasonable statement.

I think it is totally unreasonable.

It seems as if you advocate for passing laws that restrict behavior of other adult citizens that goes against your understanding of God's laws.

Yep. I don’t do lies. Killing is killing whether the adult does it or the child. Its still killing the unborn child whether you try and pin your objection on whether you happen to disagree with other peoples belief in God.

IMO, this is unreasonable in a country that is not a theocracy.

Makes theocracy sound preferable.

So what?

So you are wrong.

Since when do you recognize the UN?

What human rights were you thinking of if not the UN or the European ones?

If they did, would you recognize it?

I recognise what the UN Humans righst acts says as shown you, as you were unaware I hardly think you are in a position to be asking me whether I go by it, first you get to understand it.

The fact is, the US is a sovereign nation and when the citizens vote to allow homosexuals to get married, like they have done in 6 states, it becomes the 'right' of all homosexuals living in those states to be married. You may not like it, but it is a fact.

And its against the UN declaration of Human Rights, which is a fact whether you like it or not. And if you cant be bothered with the UN declaration of Human Rights why should anyone else be bothered with your 6 state’s laws?

Definition of what?

the definition of marriage.

None of 1 Cor 6 applies to nonbelievers

I didnt say it did or didnt, I pointed out that your definition was at odds with 1 Cor 6, your definition being like non-believers definitions of it. But in UK law and the law of most US States, there is no such legal thing as ‘homosexual marriage’

so how does it apply to the legalization of homosexual marriage?

Sorry, there is no such thing as ‘homosexual marriage’ to believer, only to non-believers.

Actually, the Pharisees tried to trap Jesus using the law. Jesus corrected them with the spirit of the law. The point is that the law is dead without understanding how to apply it - people are supposed to be controlled by the law or the Bible - the Bible is supposed to point people to God. Legislation of the Bible, specifically including nonbelievers is forcing people to comply with the law without pointing them to God.

The Pharisees disputed what Jesus said, and 1 Cor 6 is what was received from Jesus, so what you previously said is a contradiction.

 

[aspen]

BMS said,
　
I never said we were called to love others just so we can tell them about the gospel. And that is faulty thinking as well as the gospel is to tell them about the gospel whilst demonstrating it at the same time.

You know, sometimes I simply make a statement because something you write sparks it. Not everything is an accusation.

The gospel (love) is to tell them about the gospel (love) while demonstrating it (love) at the same time.

The point I am making is it doesn’t matter how lovingly one may tell non-believers about the gospel, even whilst serving them, some reject it because of repentance. Of course others are convicted, praise God.

I agree. All we can do is teach people that loving God is freedom and loving self is slavery. God is the one who converts.

How can we be worthless if Christ loved us so much to die for us?

Fishing. Answer you are looking for: 'Well it is impossible of course! Any fool can see that! Christ died for us and if we cannot see our worth, we must be ungrateful and prideful ingrates!'

Now, reality: I am not talking about the logical, theologically correct answer - I am talking about how a person feels when they are listening to a manipulating sermon/alter call and the music is playing and people are crying and everyone is going forward.

And surely we must be wretched for that to happen, after all Christ said without Him we can do nothing, without Him we perish, like branches cut off and burned in the fire.

I think it is the way we choose to see the sinner. I see the sinner as a miserable, sick, and a slave to his passions. On the contrary, I think many Christians out there see the same sinner as a lying, cheating, antisocial criminal, who is purposely flipping off the Lord and all His followers! It is similar to how people approach a child who is misbehaving - do you set limits and redirect them or do you take their behavior personally and beat them for it?

As to how often are we supposed to feel it, I guess once we know Christ we dont feel it because we know Christ, all we do is know that without Christ we are.

I tend to be more grateful to the doctor who cures me than the drill Sargent who uses humiliation and peer pressure to annihilate me. I think most people do too.

Well so have I.

So how can you have missed so much emotionalism and manipulation from the pulpit?

Nope, for the man’s lust the man would be responsible, the woman would be responsible for seducing as a prostitute.

All of which is up to God to determine. We are called to love both of those people - which means different things depending on whether or not they are Christian. In all cases, it is in there best interest to change their behavior.

Ok I would. The solution is to educate people so that they no longer think abortion by choice is ok, we agree there, but the why not vote against it. Would you vote against ethnic cleansing? If its killing, its killing.

I understand what you are saying. But to me, it is like asking people to not consider cannibalism when they are in a life raft together. Many people who get abortions are facing a worse situation than killing their child - it is hard to believe, but true. Like I said before, abortion is a reflection on the fabric of our culture - our culture has deteriorated so badly that killing your own child is sometimes the lesser of two evils. That is why I will not vote against abortion until I am able to provide a better option.

Ok so if you say you wouldn’t vote against pro-choice abortion then you must consider such killing of unborn children not harmful to society. How come? Its pretty harmful to the child.

No, it is definitely a harm to society! But there are worse things that can happen without it. Birth control is another evil that is less dangerous to society than the consequences of not using it - and I am in agreement with the Pope on this issue. I mentioned this because someone out there accused me of rejecting the teaching of the Catholic Church.

I think it is totally unreasonable.

Why?

Yep. I don’t do lies. Killing is killing whether the adult does it or the child. Its still killing the unborn child whether you try and pin your objection on whether you happen to disagree with other peoples belief in God.

Agreed. I do not think abortion is moral.

Makes theocracy sound preferable.

Well, you were born too late for a Christian theocracy, but the Middle East might be right up your alley.

So you are wrong.

I am wrong about not recognizing the moral authority of the UN?? Wow! Never thought I would hear it on a Christian Board - LOL. Where is Veteran, when you need him?

What human rights were you thinking of if not the UN or the European ones?

Well, I am an American - and I do recognize the Bill of Rights.

I recognise what the UN Humans righst acts says as shown you, as you were unaware I hardly think you are in a position to be asking me whether I go by it, first you get to understand it.

Nice try - never thought I would meet a globalist - here on Christianity Boards - incredible!

And its against the UN declaration of Human Rights, which is a fact whether you like it or not. And if you cant be bothered with the UN declaration of Human Rights why should anyone else be bothered with your 6 state’s laws?

Sorry - I live in a sovereign nation. I live by the laws of my country.

I didnt say it did or didnt, I pointed out that your definition was at odds with 1 Cor 6, your definition being like non-believers definitions of it. But in UK law and the law of most US States, there is no such legal thing as ‘homosexual marriage’

There will be.

Sorry, there is no such thing as ‘homosexual marriage’ to believer, only to non-believers.

How does that sand taste?

The Pharisees disputed what Jesus said, and 1 Cor 6 is what was received from Jesus, so what you previously said is a contradiction.

Nice loose association. I am sure you can link Kevin Bacon to 1 Cor 6, using that logic.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Apsen2,

The gospel (love) is to tell them about the gospel (love) while demonstrating it (love) at the same time.

Nope that is humanism. Its is the gospel of Jesus Christ whilst demonstrating love at the same time. Or much better as Galatians 5 puts it, in Christ.. ..faith expressing itself through love.

Many people who get abortions are facing a worse situation than killing their child

Like what is worse than death? Remember the unborn is getting killed.

our culture has deteriorated so badly that killing your own child is sometimes the lesser of two evils.

What is the worse evil?

Ok so if you say you wouldn’t vote against pro-choice abortion then you must consider such killing of unborn children not harmful to society. How come? Its pretty harmful to the child.

No, it is definitely a harm to society!

But previously you said you would only vote against things that are in your view harmful to society, now you are going against that.
Makes theocracy sound preferable.

Well, you were born too late for a Christian theocracy, but the Middle East might be right up your alley.

I am not aware of any Christian theocracy in the Middle East. Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

Nice try - never thought I would meet a globalist - here on Christianity Boards - incredible!

And you complain about Strat’s remarks.

I didnt say it did or didnt, I pointed out that your definition was at odds with 1 Cor 6, your definition being like non-believers definitions of it. But in UK law and the law of most US States, there is no such legal thing as ‘homosexual marriage’

There will be.

So do you now accept that your definition of what harms others isnt quote the same as God’s which includes sexual sin as harming ones own body as in 1 Cor 6.

 

[Foreigner]

The problem isn't the ability or inability to enforce the law.
There is no way to enforce the "rape and incest" clause because all it takes is an accusation, nothing more.

It is the fact that the United States refuses to say that murder of a baby based SOLELY on his or her gender is wrong.

On the worldly side, it shows China that we are in no position to criticize their "one child" policy because we ourselves refuse to criticize murder based on gender.

One the spiritual side, it shows God just how far this shining city on a hill that He has so greatly blessed has turned its back on Him.

A country that isn't willing to put on paper that abortion based solely on the gender of the child is wrong is a country that shows it holds no regard for God.


As far as the law being "unenforcable"....of course it would be,
A person wanting an abortion just because they don't like the gender, is a person who will lie through their teeth and give any reason to justify an abortion.

Just like those who want the "rape and incest" clause as part of the abortion law.
Completely understandable. But again, almost impossible to prove.
The FBI says that roughly 8% of all rape accusations turn out to be false.
A woman desperate not to be pregnant will make false accusations of rape in order to justify the abortion.
And since there is no level of proof required (other than the accusation) the clause itself serves as nothing but an escape clause.

 

[aspen]

The problem isn't the ability or inability to enforce the law.
There is no way to enforce the "rape and incest" clause because all it takes is an accusation, nothing more.

It is the fact that the United States refuses to say that murder of a baby based SOLELY on his or her gender is wrong.

On the worldly side, it shows China that we are in no position to criticize their "one child" policy because we ourselves refuse to criticize murder based on gender.

One the spiritual side, it shows God just how far this shining city on a hill that He has so greatly blessed has turned its back on Him.

A country that isn't willing to put on paper that abortion based solely on the gender of the child is wrong is a country that shows it holds no regard for God.


As far as the law being "unenforcable"....of course it would be,
A person wanting an abortion just because they don't like the gender, is a person who will lie through their teeth and give any reason to justify an abortion.

Just like those who want the "rape and incest" clause as part of the abortion law.
Completely understandable. But again, almost impossible to prove.
The FBI says that roughly 8% of all rape accusations turn out to be false.
A woman desperate not to be pregnant will make false accusations of rape in order to justify the abortion.
And since there is no level of proof required (other than the accusation) the clause itself serves as nothing but an escape clause.

I agree.

 

[brightmorningstar]

A country that isn't willing to put on paper that abortion based solely on the gender of the child is wrong is a country that shows it holds no regard for God.

Correct in respect to abortions where life is threatened, but if one is going to kill the unborn does it matter which sex?
It would have been nice if the 'penny dropped' with the pro-choice group as to the irony of what is proposed here.

 

[Jon-Marc]

It won't end until God puts and end to it all. The unborn who are unwanted can be "aborted"--a euphemism for murder. If it's the "wrong" gender, just have it "aborted". If a woman gets unexpectedly pregnant and doesn't want to be, she can just simply have it "aborted". Many people get so upset over animals being used in medical research when millions of lives will be saved because of that research, but at the same time see nothing wrong with unborn human babies being slaughtered by the millions simply because of the "inconvenience" of having a child, or it's the "wrong' gender". "My husband wants a son--so we will abort this girl I'm carrying and try again." So they abort how many "mistakes" until they get what they want? Lord, how much longer?

As I look to the skies how I wonder,
How much longer till Jesus comes?
As I toil and I labor and serve my dear Lord,
I can't help but long to see God's Son.

How much longer, dear Lord,
Till you come to take Your bride?
How much longer till we see Your face?
Till that day when we stand at that gate and step inside,
How much longer till evil is erased?

I wrote that many years ago and can't seem to remember all of it. I think I might have the words around here somewhere. I was lying in bed thinking about the evil in this world and said, "Lord, how much longer till You put an end to this wickedness?" Then I thought, "That sounds like a good title for a song." I got up and went to my computer, and 15-20 minutes later I had 3 or 4 stanzas, the chorus and music written. I've sung it in church. That is often my cry, "Lord, how much longer?