Obama: “Can we honestly say we’re doing enough to keep our children, all of them, safe from harm?”
I have been praying that the tragic Newtown, Connecticut, massacre will soften President Obama’s heart on the sanctity of preborn children, who are just as valuable as postborn children.
As I wrote in my weekend question, there are many reasons for the obvious breakdown of our culture, but one of them has to be abortion. When our society as a whole is groomed to condone the murder of preborn children, it is no stretch to say the value of postborn children decreases as well. It is only common sense.
If President Obama gave his speech at the Newtown memorial service yesterday without one thought of abortion, he is morally depraved beyond comprehension. Excerpts:
But we as a nation, we are left with some hard questions. You know, someone once described the joy and anxiety of parenthood as the equivalent of having your heart outside of your body all the time, walking around.
With their very first cry, this most precious, vital part of ourselves, our child, is suddenly exposed to the world, to possible mishap or malice, and every parent knows there’s nothing we will not do to shield our children from harm. And yet we also know that with that child’s very first step and each step after that, they are separating from us, that we won’t — that we can’t always be there for them.
They will suffer sickness and setbacks and broken hearts and disappointments, and we learn that our most important job is to give them what they need to become self-reliant and capable and resilient, ready to face the world without fear. And we know we can’t do this by ourselves.
It comes as a shock at a certain point where you realize no matter how much you love these kids, you can’t do it by yourself, that this job of keeping our children safe and teaching them well is something we can only do together, with the help of friends and neighbors, the help of a community and the help of a nation.
And in that way we come to realize that we bear responsibility for every child, because we’re counting on everybody else to help look after ours, that we’re all parents, that they are all our children.
This is our first task, caring for our children. It’s our first job. If we don’t get that right, we don’t get anything right. That’s how, as a society, we will be judged.
And by that measure, can we truly say, as a nation, that we’re meeting our obligations?
Can we honestly say that we’re doing enough to keep our children, all of them, safe from harm?
Can we claim, as a nation, that we’re all together there, letting them know they are loved and teaching them to love in return?
Can we say that we’re truly doing enough to give all the children of this country the chance they deserve to live out their lives in happiness and with purpose?
I’ve been reflecting on this the last few days, and if we’re honest with ourselves, the answer’s no. We’re not doing enough. And we will have to change. Since I’ve been president, this is the fourth time we have come together to comfort a grieving community torn apart by mass shootings, fourth time we’ve hugged survivors, the fourth time we’ve consoled the families of victims.
And in between, there have been an endless series of deadly shootings across the country, almost daily reports of victims, many of them children, in small towns and in big cities all across America, victims whose — much of the time their only fault was being at the wrong place at the wrong time.
We can’t tolerate this anymore. These tragedies must end. And to end them, we must change.
We will be told that the causes of such violence are complex, and that is true. No single law, no set of laws can eliminate evil from the world or prevent every senseless act of violence in our society, but that can’t be an excuse for inaction. Surely we can do better than this.
If there’s even one step we can take to save another child or another parent or another town from the grief that’s visited Tucson and Aurora and Oak Creek and Newtown and communities from Columbine to Blacksburg before that, then surely we have an obligation to try….
Are we really prepared to say that we’re powerless in the face of such carnage, that the politics are too hard?
Are we prepared to say that such violence visited on our children year after year after year is somehow the price of our freedom?
You know, all the world’s religions, so many of them represented here today, start with a simple question.
Why are we here? What gives our life meaning? What gives our acts purpose?
We know our time on this Earth is fleeting….
There’s only one thing we can be sure of, and that is the love that we have for our children, for our families, for each other. The warmth of a small child’s embrace, that is true.
The memories we have of them, the joy that they bring, the wonder we see through their eyes, that fierce and boundless love we feel for them, a love that takes us out of ourselves and binds us to something larger, we know that’s what matters.
We know we’re always doing right when we’re taking care of them, when we’re teaching them well, when we’re showing acts of kindness. We don’t go wrong when we do that….
That’s what should drive us forward in everything we do for as long as God sees fit to keep us on this Earth.
“Let the little children come to me,” Jesus said, “and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.”
Charlotte, Daniel, Olivia, Josephine, Ana, Dylan, Madeline, Catherine, Chase, Jesse, James, Grace, Emilie, Jack, Noah, Caroline, Jessica, Benjamin, Avielle, Allison, God has called them all home.
For those of us who remain, let us find the strength to carry on and make our country worthy of their memory. May God bless and keep those we’ve lost in His heavenly place. May He grace those we still have with His holy comfort, and may He bless and watch over this community and the United States of America.
There is much fodder for conversation in that speech.
Here’s one: The cold, hard truth is God at some point began to withdraw his hand of protection from over the United States of America. We no longer deserve it.
Regarding the title of my post, which was one of the lines in President Obama’s speech: He is the one who added “all of them,” not me. He didn’t have to. It was a pro-life moment.
One more thing, for those already sharpening their poison pencil to attack this post:
I will stop using current events to bring our attention to the murder of babies when the murder of babies stops. No apologies.
~ R. C. Sproul, Jr., via Andy Moore on Facebook
[Photo taken December 16, during a meeting between President Obama and grieving Newton families. Click to enlarge]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I am absolutely speechless, and not in a good way.
Pointing out this simple truth will be called “politicizing a tragedy,” but truth remains. The entire nation — possibly the world — mourns the violent deaths of 20 innocents, and their teachers. Yet, merely a few years back, each one of those children could have been violently terminated, as are about 3,000 unborn babies per day in the U.S., with few mourning their passing. Whether at gunpoint at the end of a speculum, violence against innocent children must be acknowledged for us to heal our land.
So we really have to put up with four more years of this guy? Ugh, it really hits me at times.
“And in that way we come to realize that we bear responsibility for every child, because we’re counting on everybody else to help look after ours, that we’re all parents, that they are all our children.
This is our first task, caring for our children. It’s our first job. If we don’t get that right, we don’t get anything right. That’s how, as a society, we will be judged.
And by that measure, can we truly say, as a nation, that we’re meeting our obligations?
Can we honestly say that we’re doing enough to keep our children, all of them, safe from harm?
Can we say that we’re truly doing enough to give all the children of this country the chance they deserve to live out their lives in happiness and with purpose?
We can’t tolerate this anymore. These tragedies must end. And to end them, we must change.
We will be told that the causes of such violence are complex, and that is true. No single law, no set of laws can eliminate evil from the world or prevent every senseless act of violence in our society, but that can’t be an excuse for inaction. Surely we can do better than this.
Are we really prepared to say that we’re powerless in the face of such carnage, that the politics are too hard?”
Oh my word. How many pro-lifers have uttered similar sentiments regarding the unborn? I will save his remarks and they will be my response in the future when we are told by pro-choicers that we should stop trying to butt into the private “medical decisions” of women.
We bear responsibility for every child!
All children deserve a chance to live out their lives!
We can’t tolerate this anymore!
The carnage must end!
Surely we can do better than this!
Amen, Barack Obama. Amen.
That speech of his is the biggest crock I’ve ever heard. He’s spewed some real gems in the past, but this one really takes the cake. Then he goes on to bring Jesus into the discussion. What a complete hypocrite and master of double talk this president is.
Those 5 kids in the photo with him should be taken to a lab immediately to be decontaminated after touching him.
“That speech of his is the biggest crock I’ve ever heard.”
Really? Because it strikes me that this might be the first time I’ve heard Obama utter truth. It’s just that the truth is farther reaching than he imagines. It envelopes the unborn as well as the born. He just doesn’t see that.
well Mother Theresa did say the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion.
The truth does not discriminate. It simply is what it is. Life is precious. Every life….and if Obama wants to mean what he has said, he must do some self-examination of his own heart. For he has approved the slaughter of millions of unborn innocents, and even further, he has funded their extermination. He has been against the rescue of those born alive from failed abortions, favoring their death over their liberation. He has not stood up to disavow partial birth abortions. He is a man sharing his public persona of ‘goodness’ while mocking sanctity of life. His tearful verbiage and his use of Scripture are seen as scripted… because surely our actions still speak louder than words.
That was actually a really touching speech, if he actually extended his sentiment to all children, including those who aren’t born yet. They need just as much protection and care as all the little children in danger of being beaten, raped, neglected and murdered all over.
I agree, Jack.
Who knows, maybe it will be a turning point for him? We have seen even abortion doctors realize what was going on and turn on the abortion industry, there is always hope.
We’ll be able to believe him when he puts MS Richards on a list of those banned from the White House and he issues an apology for his previous support of the evil abortion industry in America!
Praying for a Great Awakening from the disconnect America has between shedding of innocent blood and the bloodshed that follows.
Hosea 4:2
Hi Mike,
Am I the only one troubled by the fact that when black children are gunned down by black gang violence in Chicago, that there are no flags at half mast, no outcrys in congress, the president doesn’t visit, and all the mayor of Chicago can do is ask gangs not to kill (black)children, pretty please with sugar on top?
Even the “Revs” Jackson and Al Charlatan can’t trouble themselves to lead a protest when a little girl is shot on her front porch and black children and teens are used for target practice.
Where are the flowery speeches and the president consoling the families and bouncing black children on his knees?
Let’s see, black gangs killing black children while they’re trick or treating or sitting in school, not worthy of mention. Five black summer school children gunned down in Detroit, not worthy of mention. But white children gunned down? Gun control! Trayvon Martin is killed, a “racial” incident! Black children gunned down? Who cares, especially if other blacks do it.
Yes its a beautiful speech. Let’s just say I’m in closer agreement with you Mike.
Praying for our president.
Thank you Jack for your hopeful comment.
We will have to wait until January 22nd to learn whether this Sandy Hook speech is a “crock” or perhaps, by some miracle, that this president is making a 180 degree turnaround. Personally, I think Obama travels on a one way road. I cannot imagine him tossing Cecile Richards, Nancy Keenan, Sandra Fluke and his wife out of the car.
Point well taken Mary, thank you.
Love that quote by RC Sproul Jr!
Reminds me that I am not a total over the top freak for always instantly making the connection between tragedies like this one and the ongoing abortion tragedy.
” Because it strikes me that this might be the first time I’ve heard Obama utter truth.”
My daddy always said: “Even a broken clock is right..twice a day.”
Jack @ 12:49 pm – you really sound like a Christian, Jack – and I mean that as a good thing
his campaigning, oops, I mean comments make me mad, but you are right – there is always hope – it is hard to remember that some times, though, and BO really stretches my limits
“it is no stretch to say the value of postborn children decreases as well. It is only common sense.” – well no. Common sense would indicate that those who are born are more valuable because they are more wanted. When people don’t have a choice, that is when children can come to have less ‘value’. The fact that there has been a rise in concern about over-protective parents and ‘cottonwooling’ supports this.
Most people simply don’t agree with your ‘concept’ that someone who supports choice cannot feel as much sorrow and loss at situations such as this one.
I’d still like to know why the “breakdown of the culture” involves ever-decreasing violent crime rates? America has literally never been safer. You were considerably more likely to get shot, robbed or raped 25 years ago than you are today.
“Wanted” and “Most Wanted” : still gets due process and legal representation, may not be killed without trial and mandatory appeals, in some states may not be killed ever.
“Unwanted” = disposable, able to be killed at will, without rights. If born, may be left alone to die of exposure or neglect within the walls of a fully operational hospital.
The way people use language sure is subjective, ain’t it?
It’s difficult reading a comment like Mike’s and seeing 8 ‘likes’ next to it.
I mean, how is that advancing the discussion? How is that helping bring the pro-life compassionate view forward?
It has been noted over the last 4 years – you folks generally don’t like Obama. Everyone gets that.
But you know what else has been noted? Obama is the President and will be in that role for several more years.
Obama gave a great speech. Yes, his definition of a child is different than our definition of a child. Pro-lifers should be happy that his focus is on children, and should support anything that can be done to bring a culture of life forward in America. With prayer and dialogue, who knows what will happen?
Let me just say this – when I started on this board, I was generally a right leaning moderate. After a few years of crazy right wingers yelling at me about everything ever said, I’ve become pretty left leaning. When politicians are spoken to and about with the language and ideas I’ve seen on this board, I have a hard time feeling that they’ll respectfully view those thoughts and turn the other way. No, instead, they’ll become firmer in their views and naturally gravitate towards opposite views.
All I’m saying is, this course of hating everything to do with the left and loving anything to do with the right hasn’t gotten you folks very far in the pro-life cause. Maybe it is time not to see people as evil – but see abortion as evil, and take every opportunity to dialogue, appreciate, and find common ground with others in hopes of leading them to truth.
“The way people use language sure is subjective, ain’t it?” – I see it here constantly.
“2 Corinthians 7:10 For godly sorrow produces repentance leading to salvation, not to be regretted; but the sorrow of the world produces death.” There’s a difference between godly sorrow and worldly sorrow. If Obama were demonstrating godly sorrow for the savage murder of 20 innocent children last week he would immediately change his tune on abortion (which legally murders 3,000 innocent children every single day), homosexuality, and all those other godless policies, which are merely symptoms of a depraved mind. The key word in the above scripture is repentance which is a changed mind leading to changed actions. Don’t expect either. I am not fooled. No, I expect more laws which have no power whatsoever to change the human heart.
Real-stupid-ity says: December 17, 2012 at 6:15 pm
“Most people simply don’t agree with your ‘concept’ that someone who supports choice cannot feel as much sorrow and loss at situations such as this one.”
Evidentlty, Adam Lanza, was one of those people who supports ‘choice’ to kill children, even post natal children, you know like mr. bo-jangles. But I don’t believe any rational person would argue that Lanza felt ‘sorrow and loss’.
Rational people don’t condone, advocate and labor to ensure that the ‘choice’ to kill children is always available.
The ‘choice’ folks would be the ones who run over the toddler with the front wheel of their van then sit there a while ignoring the screams and the stench of the child’s expelled urine and feces and then put the van in gear and run over her witht the rear tire.
Then there are the ’choice’ brutes who walk around her mangled body and leave her to writhe in pain.
You folks have lot in common with Adam Lanza.
I am sure there was blood, urine and feces in abundance at Sandy Hook School.
“No, I expect more laws which have no power whatsoever to change the human heart.” – how on earth do you expect any ‘laws’ to change the human heart? If anything it is the human heart which in part drives the creation of laws.
“Evidentlty, Adam Lanza, was one of those people who supports ‘choice’” – you have no idea what his position on abortion was. I doubt it had any influence on his actions either way.
“But I don’t believe any rational person would argue that Lanza felt ‘sorrow and loss’.” – agreed.
“Rational people don’t condone, advocate and labor to ensure that the ‘choice’ to kill children is always available.” – apparently you are wrong. How many are against abortion in all circumstances, 20%. What fraction of those can be bothered to actually make a concerted effort to change abortion?
“The ‘choice’ folks would be the ones who run over the toddler” – and your evidence for this would be? Oh that’s right, you don’t do evidence do you. So now you’ll just spew your usual cacophony of absurdities as a substitute for rationality I suppose.
“You folks have lot in common with Adam Lanza” – I think it is your poor approach to reason and incoherent verbal spitballs which probably more closely align with the delusional behavior demonstrated by people such as Adam Lanza.
Let me just say this – when I started on this board, I was generally a right leaning moderate.
And I can run a four-minute mile.
The cold, hard truth is God at some point began to withdraw his hand of protection from over the United States of America. We no longer deserve it.
Have you got a direct line? It sure sounds like you think you have.
“The cold, hard truth is God at some point began to withdraw his hand of protection from over the United States of America. We no longer deserve it.”
This stuff always makes me a bit sick when it comes to things like child murder. Because the US, what, has legal abortion or whatever? God is cool with letting little kids get shot? I don’t understand how that’s all-loving at all.
mp -
I also wonder, in regards to the protection, what years God protected this country? Was it the slavery days? Or was there no protection, then protection again, and now it is gone again?
Prax -
Believe it or not – I’m a former voter of George Bush, Scott Walker, Bob Dole, Norm Coleman…
Almost voted McCain over Obama as well – planned to until the VP picks.
I also wonder, in regards to the protection, what years God protected this country?
Jill Stanek is peddling fear, just like Beck, Limbaugh and all the others.
It’s about the ABYSS.
The ABYSS sells books, guns, gold, survival seeds.
And there is no end to the number of fearful people to lap it up.
These children haven’t even been buried yet and they’re already spitting on a man who made a completely decent gesture.
I do not believe that God has removed His hand from us.
And Jack?
God has given us free will. Free to live as we wish. With Him or without Him.
God is not “cool” the way we kill each other and perpetrate evil.
And one day He will put an end to it.
“These children haven’t even been buried yet and they’re already spitting on a man who made a completely decent gesture.”
Well, disregarding noxious comments like Mike’s, can you see how if someone really believes that fetuses are equal in worth to born babies that they might be frustrated that Obama can understand that born children are precious but can’t seem to understand that about unborn children?
God has given us free will. Free to live as we wish. With Him or without Him.
God is not “cool” the way we kill each other and perpetrate evil.
I know you believe that, Carla. I just think that the concept of God removing protection from little children who got shot at their schools because he doesn’t like society is beyond any free will thing.
That is not what I said.
We are His children, made in His image. He allows us to be freaking heinous to each other. We do unspeakable things to each other. Satan is the father of lies and the author of evil.
And God is not a concept to me. He is my best friend.
God’s ways are not my ways. He has numbered the length of all of our days. Some of us live 10 weeks in our mother’s wombs, some live to be 6 and some live to be 115.
I know that He takes children to be with Him. Born and preborn.
I trust Him, Jack.
Jill quotes R.c. Sproul Jr.: I will stop using current events to bring our attention to the murder of babies when the murder of babies stops. No apologies.
GOOD one.
The lefties have no room to criticize as they use every crisis and tragedy to further their agenda. They used the recent death of that mother in Ireland to sell abortion. It wasn’t 30 seconds into the news about Sandy Hook Elementary that they were pushing more of their INEFFECTIVE gun restrictions- as though they were prepared for action.
And for the greenies and animal rights activists: I’ll start worrying about their causes when they include humans as a species worthy of protection.
Well, disregarding noxious comments like Mike’s, can you see how if someone really believes that fetuses are equal in worth to born babies that they might be frustrated that Obama can understand that born children are precious but can’t seem to understand that about unborn children?
Jack, these children haven’t even been laid to their final rest yet and, at least until they are, they’re deserving of our total focus.
I could just as easily ask why no one is attributing equal worth to those killed in chemical weapons attacks or ginned-up wars, but this isn’t the time or place for it.
I know that you didn’t say that, Carla. I know what you believe and I appreciate that. I just think that the concept of an all-loving God being all “meh, don’t want to protect you guys anymore, especially those kids, you screwed up too much” is pretty antithetical to an all-loving God. I know that’s not what you believe.
And you would be right that I don’t believe God does that.
You know what I mean.
:)
This is all so heart breaking to me and I cannot fathom the depth of grief the families and community are going through. We mourn with those who mourn and pray for their healing.
Another point, Mary – Barky has not said ONE word about the violence against black and Latino children in his hometown of Chicago, and I haven’t seen him comfort a grieving parent whose child was lost to gun violence in the hood. Yet he drops everything to run to this affluent, mostly white community. Don’t get me wrong, I am as saddened and sickened by this as all of you and I hate to play the race card but it makes me wonder what the reaction would be if these were children of color.
Another point, Mary – Barky has not said ONE word about the violence against black and Latino children in his hometown of Chicago, and I haven’t seen him comfort a grieving parent whose child was lost to gun violence in the hood.
This is the first time that an entire class of first-graders was hosed by an assailant armed with an assault rifle.
I think that has something to do with it.
Not quite mp,
In 1927 in Bath Township,Michigan, a school was dynamited resulting in 38 elementary children being killed.
That aside, according to an article by Al Pilkington written Aug. 10, 2009, within the previous year 14 black children had died violently within walking distance of Obama’s home, in all of Chicago 42 school age black children have died violently. Some 13 soldiers from Chicago had died in Afghanistan and Iraq, in that period 290 black children had died violently.
Double standard? Nahhh.
You have to admit that had the US forgone the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and ended ALL foreign aid to Israel, Pakistan, and Turkey, that we would have around 1.5-2 TRILLION dollars.
In October 2001, we could have launched 6-10 500 kiloton low-yield nuclear warheads to Afghanistan’s six major cities. Same with Iraq.
Take the remaining 1.4 TRILLION dollars, and use half to fund either:
-research for womb transfer from a woman wanting an abortion to a woman who wants to adopt
-low-cost medical and child care and tax incentives for widespread flex-work hours
Take the rest (around 700 BILLION) and throw it all for research to develop T-800 terminators for protection in all schools in America. 700 BILLION dollars is guaranteed to produce real-life AI and workable cyborgs to stop mass killings.
All in all count maybe 150,000 casualties in foreign strikes, but reducing abortion drastically – definitely greater than 150,000. Which is the more logically sound option?
If there is any anger, maybe it should be against the Neo-Conservatives that drove the US to worry about everyone else in the world instead of things here at home.
Are you trolling Dave? Nuke Afghani civilians to save money and hope that doesn’t come back to bite us? Eh.
Double standard? Nahhh.
You’d have to ask Bush about that particular ginned-up war.
And you failed to read what I wrote. I said it was the first time someone armed with an assault rifle killed a class of first-graders.
I am quite familiar with the 1927 incident.
Enjoy the abyss.
I have work to do.
Hello phillymiss,
I appreciate your kind words in your 3:04PM post.
I think we see on a daily basis that there is definitely a different standard for children of color, who apparently rate little more than being crime statistics. But hey, who says these children don’t matter, didn’t the mayor nicely ask, please with sugar on top, the gangs to at least stop shooting the children?
A couple of little angels not considered worthy of mention or outrage and what black children in Chicago face on a daily basis.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57470618/chicago-police-sergeant-tribal-warfare-on-the-streets/
mp 9:18pm
I suppose children being killed with an assault rifle is different than children killed by dynamite.
I don’t know, Obama is good at using the language of his enemies against them.
He actually applied the term ‘social darwinist,’ on pro-life republicans.
And then of course there was MItt Romney, who on a national level, re-termed pro-life to mean abortion is tolerable in cases of rape and incest. Or maybe he was just re-iterating what many social-justice ‘champions’ already claimed for themselves.
I think it’s important to say fearlessly that we are not just anti-abortion, because that’s using the politisized term for what in essence, means anti-feticide.
I tell people I am anti-feticide.
Use that against me if you can. Please, I’d like to see how that would work.
Also, I am still wondering how one would justify giving money to a charity that takes money from USAID, who states plainly on their website that all recipients must comply to their standards, and that among those standards is the goal of reducing fertility in the populations they ‘benefact,’ as Food For the Hungry does.
I wish there was more discernment in some areas of our movement, more awareness of the craftiness of the enemy, but that’s life.
It was a lovely address, which should of course apply to children 5 minutes before, 5 minutes after, and 5 years after being born. I am very uncomfortable with Obama quoting from the Bible. Rat poison is 99% good food – that’s why it’s so effective and deadly.
Blue Velvet,
I deleted your comment as you are only here to incite.
You want to jump in the discussion and ask intelligent questions and stay on topic?
Be my guest.
Reality says:
December 17, 2012 at 6:15 pm
Most people simply don’t agree with your ‘concept’ that someone who supports choice cannot feel as much sorrow and loss at situations such as this one.
I am impressed with how clearly you stated this, Reality. Thank you.
However, it does not matter what “most people” think. ”Most people” can be wrong.
Imagine a racist who felt no remorse when a Negro was lynched, even hoping for an increase in such violence. We naturally wonder if such a person could feel a full measure of loss when a neighbor’s child died of diptheria.
The concept is clear and reasonable enough — a person who devalues certain human lives has a diminished capacity to appreciate all human life.
And when an entire culture devalues segments of human life — we expect to see more capital punishment, more war, more euthanasia, and more acts of random violence. These are what Communist China, Nazi Germany, and the United States have in common.
Reality: You’re simply wrong. God is not mocked. When a country is led (via leaders and their godless policies) away from God, there are consequences. No, it’s not God’s punishment for sin has its own hellish consequences. This is why an infinitely loving God pleads us return to Him and His ways for he knows the nightmarish power of sin, the ultimate of which is death itself. Abortion, and all such types of murder are the result of disbelief and symtomatic of a rebellious heart and are grossly sinful, which no laws can change. We have had laws against murder since civilization began and people still murder. If our culture truly wants this bad stuff to be reduced we would feverishly be working to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ which is the only thing that can change the wicked human heart, present in each and every one of us since birth. By the way, do you have any idea whatsoever whom you are opposing by your words? Yes, it’s the God of Heaven who begs you turn to Him. I suggest you accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior before it’s too late.
While I agree with much of what Hisman says there seems to be a kind of culture’-block that is pervasive in our modern cultures. We do tend to isolate older from younger human beings. We humans even make a huge and often-inappropriate deal of adult vs children. Maybe its the totality of rejection of niativite. We adults ‘guide’ our kids, but are we also jealous of their ‘flexibility’ and their sense of wonder; and their sponge-like quality to amass information; on and on? Hey, weren’t we once just like that too! In our fanatic plunge for ‘control’, what have we lost? Instead of innocense, we now have ‘choice’. Isn’t this a new face of innocense – a deadly face, but a movement towards… what: being-an-adult or death?
John, the Bible predicted the state of the world and its general mindset near the end. Perhaps it’s inevitable since God has done everything in His power to draw people to Himself. Yes, Jesus asked if he would find any faith whatsoever on earth when he returned. The conclusion is that God wants none to perish and is waiting until the very last possible souls that can be saved will be saved. Beyond that, what’s the point?
Hey Hisman(Phil),
Sorry, that it has taken so-long to respond .. gr-r-r-r computer saw my post go ft-t-t- into either-land. In the past few decades there has been an increased ‘Christian?’ fascination with ‘the end times’. Even Jesus Hmiself said that He did NOT know the hour. And rightly so … we’ve got enough time to be holy … to me being ‘saved’ is secondary to being holy – being One in God/being His child.
There is a common practice in our day to place children on some sort of pedestal. We adults ALL DO IT (even Hans called the little girl who could-not-use-her-arms as ‘cute’.) I think other words were ‘adorable’ .. I think you get my drift. Children (at that age) are indeed cute. But its for the parents, it makes parenting much easier. [It also makes teaching more pleasant-comfortable.] [Kinda-like the pageant syndrome!]
I have this friend who absolutely loved being a kid – no responsibilities [said he]. He hates adulthood. Is that what Adam feared – growing up? Did he kill himself(20yrs), his Mom and the little kids (in his Mom’s class), so they could be forever locked into this fantasy-land?
If this is correct, then having more police is just to protect our kids (or adult fantasy)?
I sincerely hope and pray that Obama will have a change of heart. He desperately needs too. May God help him to see the truth and change.
http://voiceforhope.blogspot.com/2012/12/its-not-merry-christmas-for-all.html
Hi phillymiss 8:46pm
We already know the reaction when it is children of color. These children amount to little more than crime statistics, unless of course their killings can be somehow be exploited as a “racial” incident, at which time the “Revs” Jackson and Al Charlatan will race each other to the scene to get their faces on camera and the left wing media will shed their crocodile tears.
You in no way place the race card, you only state the obvious.
The responsibility of God is for the love that precedes free will and tragedy, the grace that embraces these victims for all eternity:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yV1mCVmiixo&feature=player_embedded
I think I may die from irony poisoning after reading that.
Ex-RINO, you can only play the “I used to be conservative” card so many times before it becomes innocuous and pathetic.
“I also wonder, in regards to the protection, what years God protected this country? Was it the slavery days? Or was there no protection, then protection again, and now it is gone again?”
The liberal Christian pastor’s son ‘Ex-GOP’ mocks the protection of God. You are as phony as a $3 bill. Cause to admit that we are judged by a righteous God would be to confess that you are doomed.
Oh gee, I’m quite sure Ex-GOP is shaking in his boots right now :-)
t*seeker
– On your first post – I fully support the GOP continuing to shrink who they consider Republicans. If voting for Republicans doesn’t make a person Republican at the time – if you guys want to consider these silly “in name only” tags to shrink your base – that’s fine by me. You folks can continue to work to “purify” the party. And the Dems will continue to win elections until you guys figure out how majorities work. Very fortunate that the GOP was able to screw with the voting maps to ensure a GOP majority in the house – if it wasn’t for silent negotiations and screwy mapping, the GOP would be totally left out in the cold. But I suppose you could then kick all sorts of voters out, call then ‘in name only’, and purify the party.
– The second post – I’m honestly asking – what years was this nation following God’s lead and had His protection, and when did that go away? We always talk about the “good ole days”. So let’s really look at those days and see if they were really good?
“Cause to admit that we are judged by a righteous God would be to confess that you are doomed.”
Mr. T-Man, you’ve exceeded yourself. You need help.
mp, you can mock the Lord if you like. I want no part of it. If refusing to mock the Lord is called a purification then I say please wash me clean.
I have “Son of a Preacher Man” stuck in my head now.
“The second post – I’m honestly asking – what years was this nation following God’s lead and had His protection, and when did that go away?”
Ex-RINO, the Lord’s protection is not changing. It is not the Lord who removes his protection but you and your godless utopia that choose to move out from the safety of the Lord. But I will not join you in your mockery. If that means being crushed by the weight of a nation of people where the mutilation of mother’s wombs and slaughtering of unborn children has become nothing more then a political position; then leave me out because I choose to place my trust in the Lord who comes close and saves me.
Hi Jack,
You can’t be old enough to remember when that song came out. Billy Ray was the son of a preacher man, Dusty Springfield. I got such a laugh out of it because in my heyday, I dated a guy named Ray who was the son of a preacher man, and he definitely fit the song!
Lol Mary, it came out years before I was born. I have always liked Dusty Springfield though.
”And the Dems will continue to win elections until you guys figure out how majorities work.”
Ex-RINO,
You can take your comfort in the majority. I’ll take mine in the Lord.
Yes, it was in the ‘slavery days.’ There are more slaves today in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA than there ever were before all the of the years prior to 1856 COMBINED.
These are not just Black slaves they are White slaves, and slaces of every creed and color, and most of them are CHILDREN, servicing adult male Americans, also of every ethnic background.
That you, see is a result of taking God out of the School System and out of the Court Houses. Which began in 1950’s with not just the scopes trial, but there were other erroneous jurisdictions that presided over the removal of Christian Heritage from our Country.
Politics would have you believe the only slaves in this country were those sold by the Africans to the English and imported to A very small segment of American Entroprenuers, it was the rest of the country who remained uneducated enough about the issue for it to persist until the point of armed conflict, much as the abortion epidemic has run our country into the ground today, politicaly, economically, and populaiton-wise we are are at a crisis point,
Dusty was great. She did some fine work with the Pet Shop Boys too (love the Pet Shop Boys).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wn9E5i7l-Eg
Atheists don’t mock your god truth, he doesn’t exist. It is the hypocrisy, lack of logic and inconsistencies displayed by believers that we mock.
“most of them are CHILDREN, servicing adult male Americans, also of every ethnic background…….. That you, see is a result of taking God out of the School System and out of the Court Houses” – um, you do realise where some of that ‘servicing’ has been taking place don’t you?
Truth -
Can I ask you an honest question?
Do you sometimes get really drunk, and then come on this board and post?
I ask this honestly. I sometimes read you posts and expect that it has come from The Onion or something.
Sex slavery is taking place in every dark corner of America. Those dark corners, the corners out of reach of the light of Chirst, are dramatically increasing.
Don’t believe me. The Church got hit the hardest with ‘scandals,’ while molestation was taking place EVERYWHERE, simply because the Church CAN be held accountable for this kind of behavior. The Boyscouts are just as bad off as any Church’s in that regards, just MUCH LESS publicised. And if it’s going on in the Church’s you can bet it’s going on EVERYWHERE else, including, yes, I know, it’s so hard to believe; the Public School System. It goes on at pediatricuan offices and everywhere there is an oppotunity for it to occour.
If you were in the shoes of a sex=predator where would you go to commit your crimes, what kinds of jobs would you try to get, who would you hang out with at bars, and who would you try to get to know so you could rape. Exactly-our culture is SATURATED with it. It was not like this 50 years ago Mysogyny was not the social disease it is today.
“It was not like this 50 years ago” – I think you’ll find it was. It was just ‘hushed up’ more. Many of the more serious allegations against institutions of various types are about what happened 50 years ago.
“Mysogyny was not the social disease it is today” – what do you even mean by this??
“These are not just Black slaves they are White slaves, and slaces of every creed and color, and most of them are CHILDREN, servicing adult male Americans, also of every ethnic background.
That you, see is a result of taking God out of the School System and out of the Court Houses. Which began in 1950?s with not just the scopes trial, but there were other erroneous jurisdictions that presided over the removal of Christian Heritage from our Country.”
Yeah, that’s crap. Sex slavery has been happening for hundreds of years in the US and otherwise.
Hi Jack,
Sex slavery and every kind of slavery is as old as the human race.
Concerning Dusty, I loved her song, and I remember it well, “Wishing and a hoping”. It came out in 1964, I was raised in the city and it was during a miserable heatwave, definitely “Summer in The City.”
Mary,
Yikes! I remember those days too. “The British invasion” was a whole lot more than the Beatles. I loved Dusty, and especially Petula Clark.
Ah, Petula Clark. I saw her in concert back in about 1998. Lovely.
Not so keen on Cilla Black though (whose surname is actually White).
Disease as in a trapped mindset-most men and women are more derogatory towards women than they have ever been in the history of this country.
This is all statistically speaking.
MOtherhood is treated like a disease-women are taught to either hate their bodies for their reproductive powers, or to exploit their own bodies for their objective value, as it is in the subjugated state.
Yes, there was slavery prior, read the Bible.
You will learn much more than that. But Christ came so that whoever should believe shall have eternal life. Read sermon on the mount for more on Christ’s idea of ‘social justice,’.
slavery is far more common today in America than it was 200 years ago, but if your into snowing over the truth, then you will obviousely try to distort this fact as well, without contributing anything to the solution. We in the Pro-life movment, and true-believing Catholics accept this Crown of Thorns that you lay on our heads.
I am anti-feticide. I am anti-abortion…
AND WON BY LOVE, I AM ROE.
Peace be with you…
“Do you sometimes get really drunk, and then come on this board and post?”
Ex-RINO, I stated that you choose to mock the Lord’s protection and I choose to place my trust in the Lord. Are you implying/agreeing with ‘reality’ that one would have to be drunk or a hypocrite in order to place their faith in the Lord? Cause I can seriously understand that coming from ‘reality’ but you sir claim to be a Christian. I just happen to be a believer in a nation where the majority has chosen to forsake God and, like you, sees the killing of unborn children as nothing more that a political consideration.
I’d just like to know what you mean by “Mysogyny was not the social disease it is today”
I did not mention the word ‘drunk’ truth, try to be accurate for once. I said “It is the hypocrisy, lack of logic and inconsistencies displayed by believers that we mock.”
No ‘reality’ you said hypocrite, Ex-RINO said drunk. Your mind seems incapable of ever comprehending a post beyond a “gotcha word’. You are a waste of bytes.
“Are you implying/agreeing with ‘reality’ that one would have to be drunk or a hypocrite in order to place their faith in the Lord?” – your words. You’ve been bitten.
t*seeker -
Numerous times, I’ve asked about when the protection was here and when it wasn’t. If you are going to go around flippantly suggesting that God lifted his protection over people so they consequently got gunned down, I think you should be prepared to have a little bit more information – like when were we protected and when did this protection get lifted. It is a simple question based on what you’ve said.
I asked if you were drunk not because you are speaking about the Lord – but because you are babbling on and on like a politician that won’t answer a question directly but needs to fill time and make it sound like they know what they are talking about.
“Numerous times, I’ve asked about when the protection was here and when it wasn’t.”
And I told you December 20, 2012 at 8:23 pm
truth – so your contention is that God always protects this nation, but at times, there are enough godless folks (who you call liberals) that tilt the balance enough so that the protection is not there? That is your essential contention?
Oh yeah, well, people respected Motherhood before ‘women’s lib,’ completely negated that as a career.
Motherhood was sacred and now mom’s are constantly having to fight to live the classic american dream of being a home maker. Homemakers are no longer respected as the pillars of our community. Women are supposed to have jobs outside the home, now. I don’t think that’s right.
The family should be respected, and widespread mysogyny is a direct result of the objectification of women.
If groups like N.O.W. and Planned Parenthood cared about women, they would be defending women who get short-changed in custody, and child support cases instead of pimping aboriton as ‘critical women’s health care.’
Right?
They would be collecting statistic on suicide rates and abuses resulting from abortion, and warning us on it’s all too common fatal side affects.
Right?
All the death’s from RU487 – would be making the evening news, instead they are being snowed over by these same self-said, ‘women’s’ groups.
Right Roe N.O.W.!
Unfortunately N.O.W. is for career lesbian’s and has no interest in REAL women’s issues.
“truth – so your contention is that God always protects this nation, but at times, there are enough godless folks (who you call liberals) that tilt the balance enough so that the protection is not there? That is your essential contention?”
Ex-RINO,
Answering a few straightforward questions will help you better understand my essential contention.
What percentage of people who attended the Democratic convention were shouting in favor of keeping the name of God out of the Democratic Party platform?
My guess is 25-30% of the people that were there (and seems supported by the articles I’ve read).
That is debateable as shown here by ABC news.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/democrats-rapidly-revise-platform-include-god/story?id=17164108#.UNXym3d8a4E
But lets not argue the percentages right now and move on.
Do you know why the Democratic Party removed the mention of God from their platform to begin with?
Here is a statement made about the temporary removal:
“The 2008 platform reference is ‘God-given’ and is about growing the middle class and making America fair, not actually about faith. The platform includes an entire plank on the importance of faith based organizations and the tremendous work that they do. Further, the language we use to talk about faith and religion is exactly the same vocabulary as 2008. I would also note that the platform mentions: ‘faith’ 11 times; ‘religion’ or ‘religious’ 9 times; ‘church’ 2 times (one is a quote); and, ‘clergy’ 1 time.”
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/democrats-shift-language-on-israel-remove-god-given-from-platform/
Ex-GOP, why do you call him t*seeker? I’m just wondering.
Navi
Honestly, I have a hard time associating the word ‘truth’ with his posts. In regards to posting inaccurate information, blatant lies, and misleading nuggets – truth leads this board hands down. I have to fact check everything that is posted and the amount of information that is flat out wrong is really disturbing.
“The 2008 platform reference is ‘God-given’ and is about growing the middle class and making America fair, not actually about faith.”
Ex-RINO, here is the exact line in the platform that they deemed inappropriate: “We need a government that stands up for the hopes, values, and interests of working people, and gives everyone willing to work hard the chance to make the most of their God-given potential.”
Now can you explain to me your contention that the use of God-given potential in this context was unfair for the middle class?
His point is that the statement is about the middle class and equality – that the statement wasn’t meant to mean anything in relation to religion or belief – that there were other sections of the platform meant for that.
For instance, if I I had two statements:
– I love Jesus.
– I love the Chicago Bears and all of their God-given potential.
Removing ‘God’ from the second statement doesn’t mean I no longer believe in God – remember, we still have statement number one. But statement number two is clearly about the Chicago Bears – not about God. So in my belief, it would stupid for a person to read those two statement above, and if faced with the thought that the word ‘God’ might be taken out of the second sentence – comes to the conclusion that they don’t care about faith. I would call that person ignorant or illogical.
That answer the question directly enough?
It would except that for your explanation to even be considered valid then God would have to have been mentioned somewhere else in the platform but God was not. There was no statement number one to fall back on in regards to the mention of God. ALL references to God were deliberately removed.
Truth, why do you care? You hate the Democratic party anyway.
T*seeker
Let me post a few statements here- if you believe this is a strong statement about faith and God – give it a 100%. If it is a statement having nothing to do with faith of God, give it a 0%. Otherwise, give it a number in between.
1) Faith. Faith has always been a central part of the American story, and it has been a driving force of progress and justice throughout our history. We know that our nation, our communities, and our lives are made vastly stronger and richer by faith and the countless acts of justice and mercy it inspires. Faith- based organizations will always be critical allies in meeting the challenges that face our nation and our world—from domestic and global poverty, to climate change and human trafficking. People of faith and religious organizations do amazing work in communities across this country and the world, and we believe in lifting up and valuing that good work, and finding ways to support it where possible. We believe in constitutionally sound, evidence-based partnerships with faith-based and other non-profit organizations to serve those in need and advance our shared interests. There is no conflict between supporting faith-based institutions and respecting our Constitution, and a full commitment to both principles is essential for the continued flourishing of both faith and country.
2) We offer our … vision of a free people using their God-given talents, combined with hard work, self-reliance, ethical conduct, and the pursuit of opportunity, to achieve great things for themselves and the greater community.
3) We pledge to respect the religious beliefs and rights of conscience of all Americans and to safeguard the independence of their institutions from government. We support the public display of the Ten Commandments as a reflection of our history and of our country’s Judeo-Christian heritage…
4) We need a government that stands up for the hopes, values, and interests of working people, and gives everyone willing to work hard the chance to make the most of their God-given potential.
5) When I wake in the morning, I wait on the Lord, I ask him to give me the strength to do right by our country and our people…And when I go to bed at night, I wait on the Lord and I ask him to forgive me my sins and to look after my family and to make me an instrument of the Lord.”
I’d love if you did it without googling the source…
Jack,
In order to lead Ex-RINO to a comprehension of the concept of God’s protection of our nation. He seemed to really be struggling with how God’s protection of our nation could ever waver.
Ex-RINO,
You seem to want to avoid answering very simplistic questions about the Democratic Party platform and generalize about faith and feelings. I asked you very straight-forward questions for a reason. If you can’t even bring yourself to admit obvious facts then how can we build any kind of dialogue?
Do you or do you not admit that”God” was not mentioned in the Democratic Party Platform and had to be voted back in at the convention?
Oh, sorry t*seeker – yes, the three letter word “G-o-d” was not mentioned in one draft of the platform but was added later.
t*seeker -just out of curiosity, when did you first ask that question?
Ex-RINO, then we are in agreement that all references to the name of God had been deliberately removed from the Democratic Party Platform as it was brought to the 2011 Dn’C. And your insinuations that God was mentioned elsewhere in the platform were incorrect. Thank you, now we can move forward.
No t*seeker – we are not in agreement, though you can move forward.
I indicated that the word ‘God’ was no longer there, but there are other statements of faith within the platform.
I believe anyone indicating that all matters related to God were removed from the platform had not actually looked at the platform and were uneducated about it.
You can move on – I just wanted to state that information.
You answer as to why they removed God’s name from the Democratic Party Platform was that God was already mentioned elsewhere in the platform and that has been proven to be false. So try again. Why did they remove God’s name from the party platform. You need to understand that it was not just done incidentally. It cannot be denied that their was vociferous opposition to putting God’s name back into the platform. Tell me what you believe to be the real reason and not your insinuations that it was incidental.
No t*seeker – you are in correct. I did not say that God was mentioned elsewhere in the platform. I indicated that faith was talked about elsewhere in the platform.
I do believe there are some within the party that believe that since atheists make up a large number of people in this country, that having the word God in the platform isn’t recognizing all people. However, God did remain in the platform, and a large section on faith did as well.
Where are you going with all of this?
Truth, if I understand you correctly you believe that because the US is becoming more secular (the Democratic party removing and then putting back in the mention of God from their party platform being your foremost example), that means that God is removing his protection from the US?
Where I am going is helping you understand how and why God’s protection of our nation could vary over time. Within the context of a discussion about God’s allegiance to our nation it is relevant to understand what percentage of Democrats (as they are the party who won majority) voiced opposition to returning the mention of God to the party platform and it is also relevant why they voiced their opposition.
Jack, That would not be God removing His protection from the US; that would be us moving ourselves out from under God’s protection.
t*seeker –
The largest two mass killings at schools in the US were in 1927 and 2007, both during GOP presidents? How does this fit into your theory?
The UK has a very small percentage of murders compared to the US – under your theory then, are they more of a Godly country and deserving of God’s protection?
Let’s start with those two.
“Jack, That would not be God removing His protection from the US; that would be us moving ourselves out from under God’s protection”
All right I guess that’s fair. It’s another reason that I won’t worship the biblical God though.
Jack -
With all due respect, you sure aren’t as smart as I’ve previously given you credit for.
Of all the great theologians through time – of all the resources, and even the many people on this board that profess Christian views and try to present a Biblical view of the world – of all these people, why you do quickly accept some BS presented in a dumba** theory with a million holes in it?
So t*seeker essentially says that, while the Democrats have words of faith in other parts of their platform, a few hundred or even thousand people at a convention that wanted the word ‘God’ out of a sentence or two in the platform – that this led to God allowing a couple of dozen people to die in a shooting.
How can you, a person who seems to have a decent head on his shoulders, so quickly accept one of the dumbest theological positions I’ve ever heard. Even in the couple of replies that I put in there, don’t you see how t*seeker hung himself in his own positions? They don’t make sense – they don’t hold up – and they are unbiblical.
Take a read of this Jack.
http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/god-kept-out
Seriously, if you ever want to talk Christianity – actual Christianity – not this BS view of God that blowhard t*seeker believes – let me know – we’ll somehow get email addresses exchanged and talk offline.
t*seeker
I think your position is about the dumbest thing I’ve ever read on this board.
Do you really think the Dems would be a more biblical party if they inserted the word ‘God’ a couple of more times in their platform? Westboro Baptist Church has ‘God’ all over their website – does this make them good? The GOP doesn’t have the words ‘Jesus’, ‘Christ’, or ‘Lord’ in their platform at all – so are they failures?
Do you think God looks at the political platforms of various parties around the world and decide which countries to protect or not?
And what happened in 2007? When a bigger school shooting happened, we had a GOP president in the white house, and God was firmly in both party platforms.
Don’t be an idiot, and don’t think that simply because there are people in this country that don’t profess faith in God, that God is going to step aside and not be involved in this country and the lives of people.
Tragedies like this have happened throughout time. God mourns and comforts the families, and we should all pray for peace and hope at times like this.
To try to advance some BS claim that some Democrats didn’t want the word God in a document, so therefore God allowed people to step out of protected, and a couple of dozen people were killed – try state that is downright evil. Ranks right up there when I’ve seen people argue that we should simply allow poor people who don’t have health insurance to die.
It was meant more flippant than a serious position Ex. Just being sarcastic, because I think the position that God lets innocents die because of some political platform is ridiculous thing to believe.
I don’t know if it’s all that rare of a position though, it seems like half of what I have seen on Twitter is stuff blaming the shootings on lack of school-sponsored pray that caused God to be “kicked out” of school, or something of that nature. I was raised on that “God punishes many for the sins of a few” type of theology, and that’s what all this is reminding me of.
I like your link a lot better than all that.
Jack -
We’re a country full of idiots.
My kids can pray in school if they want. I can pray whenever, wherever I want. It is the beauty of prayer. To think that my life or my kids needs government sponsored permission and participation to pay is a mix being arrogance and ignorance.
By the way – I found a great health care blog – it has some general politics mixed in – but thought you might like it. Had a good recent article regarding subsidies for those who want to have insurance but previously haven’t been able to afford it.
http://www.healthbeatblog.org/
“The largest two mass killings at schools in the US were in 1927 and 2007, both during GOP presidents? How does this fit into your theory?”
Ex-RINO, I find it difficulty to say with certainty wether any single event falls under God’s protection or not cause God’s ways are so far removed from (above) our ways. But I can say as a matter of principle that rejecting God’s authority over our lives will lead people out from under God’s protection.
t*seeker – over a series of about 10 questions, you essentially said these kids were killed because the word ‘God’ was removed from a statement in the Democrat platform.
Now you say God’s ways are too complex for you to understand, which is a good realization.
Are you indicating though, in your last sentence, that if people reject God, kids will die? Or that the individual steps out of the protection from God?
Ex-RINO, you are a mockery to both God and the memories of those children by stooping to a new low and accusing me of saying that those kids were killed because the name of God was removed from the Democratic Platform. News flash for you. The Democratic Party rejected God from their platform a long time ago. The party that proudly supports the choice to kill 4000 unborn children a day. What is new is that more and more are willing to openly embrace the rejection of God.
Jack -
You’ve been reading this.
Did I miss something?
Was t*seeker not implying that these kids died because protection was taken away, and the reason was because of things like the Dems temporarily taking the word ‘God’ out of their platform?
Anybody else reading, please let me know your thoughts. You can simply ‘like’ this comment if you agree that it appears t*seeker was implying that.
Truth, it does appear like you were implying that, or at least headed that way.
implying….heading that way…..but there isn’t even one post where I mention the killing of those children. And if you can get Jack and two trolls to like your comment it makes you feel better about yourself. Typically pathetic of you really.
I’m not a troll. :( You guys are being mean to me today lol.
Jack – We’re a country full of idiots.
Ex-RINO, you are speaking for you and Jack right?
if you reject God, you do also reject His protection. He may very well accept that as your free-will choice. Our Country was founded by men who believed this. It was only until the 1950’s that men in this country decided we were made of monkey DNA rejecting the placing of God’s ten commandments into the school system, opening up our society to all kinds of debauchery derived of a deviation from divine law, which in it’s most basic form, is also natural law.
Breaking any one of those Ten will naturally induce war and dissention amongst individuals, tribes and nations.
Ex-RINO, does ANYBODY really buy your BS that the Democratic Party removed God from their platform in order to be fair to the middle class? lol..that is something else.
Well, I am monitoring this conversation but nooooo way am I jumping in!
Lol Mary don’t do it! Both sides will call you stupid haha.
Hi Jack,
Well, it certainly wouldn’t be a first. But at least I’m not mean to you!
I am in the same situation, Mary.
t*seeker – so now you are back-peddling as fast as you can.
So this was the original statement:
“Here’s one: The cold, hard truth is God at some point began to withdraw his hand of protection from over the United States of America. We no longer deserve it.”
So what do you believe this means in relation to the shooting in CT?
t*seeker -
The statement wasn’t about being “fair” to the middle class.
The statement was about the middle class. The phrase ‘God-given potential’ is hardly a massive endorsement of faith in the US. Therefore, people freaking out about the removal of that phrase are illogical and looking to pick a fight where one shouldn’t exist.
If you want to play the 100% game I laid out earlier, feel free. Otherwise, read through my early post that mentioned the two phrases (‘I love Jesus” being the first), and try to understand the logic of it.
“The statement was about the middle class. The phrase ‘God-given potential’ is hardly a massive endorsement of faith in the US.”
Now you are trying to say the name of God was removed because God-given potential is not relevant to the middle-class? And you are going to try and have me believe the name of God was removed incidentally when I have video of the crowds of people at the Dn’C convention shouting not to put God’s name back into the Democratic platform.
“Here’s one: The cold, hard truth is God at some point began to withdraw his hand of protection from over the United States of America. We no longer deserve it.”
So what do you believe this means in relation to the shooting in CT?
Ex-RINO, I do not presume to know why any one act of terror or evil happens in relation to God’s plan. You could point to any number of natural disasters or even to the crucifixion of Jesus Himself and say it is unfair. I would never presume to judge these things in relation to God passing out His judgement on us. What I can tell you definitively is that, as a matter of principle, rejecting God’s authority over our lives will lead people out from under God’s protection.
T*seeker -
I answered your questions, one by one as you presented them. I logically went down the path that you wanted.
If you’d like to further discuss the Dem platform, then we flip roles – I get to lead this time. Let me know – otherwise, we’re getting nowhere.
t*seeker
Do you believe that the rejection is on a national level, or on a personal level?
Do you think that people within the country rejecting God leads to God’s taking away of protection, and then schools may get shot up.
Or do you think the protection is only in regards to individuals?
Do you believe that the rejection is on a national level, or on a personal level?
I believe rejection can exist on a community and an individual basis. That is why it was important for you to answer truthfully about the reason why those people at the Dn’C convention were so vociferous in their rejection of God.
Do you think that people within the country rejecting God leads to God’s taking away of protection, and then schools may get shot up.
I JUST answered this for you. Either you are ignoring me or just won’t accept my answer but I will say these two things one more time. 1) It is not God removing His protection from us; it is us moving ourselves out from under God’s protection. 2) I do not presume to know why any one act of terror or evil happens in relation to God’s plan. You could point to any number of natural disasters or even to the crucifixion of Jesus Himself and say it is unfair. I would never presume to judge these things in relation to God passing out His judgement on us. What I can tell you definitively is that, as a matter of principle, rejecting God’s authority over our lives will lead people out from under God’s protection.
Ex-GOP,
I’m willing to go with your denial of the DNC’s rejection of God. I believe it was, for the most part, an anti-semitic rejection of Israel’s right to exist. Which fits in nicely with their rejection of a baby’s right to exist. Peachy Party ya got there.
I can’t quiite figure out your religious outlook, though. I had gathered you were a member of a “Kumbaya” church, much like the one in my neighborhood we call the “hippie church.” And yet you weren’t at all reticent to label Mitt Romney a “cult member.” I thought only “judgmental fundamentalists” were supposed to do that.
Hans, what? An actor isn’t allowed to change the script?
“I’m willing to go with your denial of the DNC’s rejection of God.”
Hans, To them God is just another person that needs to be kept in the politically correct places. You shouldn’t put anything past them.
“I logically went down the path that you wanted.” – Ex-GOP, you ought to know by now what a problem that is for truth ;-)
Hans -
I’m evangelical Christian.
Are you questioning because I’m drilling t*seeker’s insinuation that kids died because a minority percentage of people at a convention didn’t want the word ‘God’ in a sentence?
Ex,
No, not really. That was a pretty loud “minority” by the way, don’t you think?
I just gathered from previous comments that your church was of a pretty liberal, “tolerant” bent, yet you were awfully blunt in calling Romney a cultist. After more than a century and millions of members I think we can call it a church now.
Hans -
Not liberal at all actually. Where did you get that idea?
Call mormonism what you want, as long as you don’t call it a Christian denomination – if you do, that would be interesting to see your rationale.
Are you Catholic? I don’t remember, and don’t keep any notes or anything (though in hindsight, that would be handy!)
Not Catholic. Raised Lutheran, like most of Scandinavian background. But I’m a bit miffed at most churches, Mormon included. Only don’t call me “spiritual.” I’m more serious than that.
Ex-RINO,
Once again you trying to derail the topic at hand by redirecting the conversation to attacks on me. How can anybody be unable to see the irony in Obama preaching that we may not be doing enough to keep our children, all of them, safe from harm? Emphasis on all of them. Including the 4000 unborn lost every day in the USA. The man who lends 100% of his support behind Planned Parenthood who reaches into thousands of American women’s wombs every day and tears children into bloodied pieces. How can you not see the irony in that?
Merry Christmas Eve, everyone.
Merry Christmas to you too Jack.