New WND column, "Pastors revolt against the IRS"

WND%20logo.gif

On Sunday, Sept. 28, the Alliance Defense Fund is planning a nationwide pastors' revolt to challenge an IRS tax code that has muzzled churches and pastors from expressing opinions on political candidates for over 50 years.

Challenged will be a 1954 change in the code called the Johnson Amendment, after then-Sen. Lyndon Johnson.

Johnson proposed the amendment to silence opponents to his second Senate race. Two nonprofit foundations were pouring money into a publicity campaign calling Johnson soft on communism.

There is no legislative history for the Johnson Amendment. According to the scant Senate record, then-Democrat Minority Leader Johnson stood up on the floor and proposed it as an attachment to an existing bill. After Johnson said the bill sponsor was in agreement, the presiding officer simply called for a voice vote. There was no debate....

ADF will challenge one specific part of the code....

On Sept. 28, approximately 50 pastors the ADF has chosen from volunteers nationwide will preach sermons to provoke the IRS on this point. This would immediately invoke a lawsuit that would find its way to the U.S. Supreme Court....

Continue reading my column today, "Revolt of the pastors," on WorldNetDaily.com.


Comments:

Of course, just replace the income tax with the FairTax (www.fairtax.org) and the Johnson Amendment is no longer relevant. Then not only will churches be free from the harassment of the IRS but so will all Americans.

Posted by: Bill R. at May 28, 2008 1:08 PM


I once had a college professor call Lyndon Johnson "the devil incarnate," and in many ways he wasn't far off.

Johnson should never have been in the U.S. Senate, and he never should have been vice-president and then president, but of course through voter fraud such as dead people voting, he stole the election during the race for the U.S. Senate in Texas in 1948, thus "winning" that election by 87 votes.

Johnson was a bully, and he should have been stopped from slipping that piece of legislation through in 1954 that has muzzled conservative churches ever since then from speaking out on issues of national significance.

Barry Lynn, of course being on the left, has no problem with pastors such as Jeremiah Wright spewing their hatred of the United States from their pulpits.

It is only conservative pastors that he wants silenced in speaking out about the national issues. If the truth about Barry Lynn ever comes out in this world it will probably be revealed that his being a "reverend" was just a front, and that he could very well be an agnostic or an atheist who was simply posing as a "reverend" to further the agenda of the Left.

Posted by: Clay B. at May 28, 2008 1:16 PM


God is not a Republican!

Posted by: JohnS at May 28, 2008 1:18 PM


Isaiah 40:8 "The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God stands forever."

Isaiah 55:11 "so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it."

2 Corinthians 10:3-5 "For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ."

2 Chronicles 7:14 "if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land."

Jill,

I am absolutely convinced that the key to ending legalized abortion is to proclaim God's Word against it. Ending this satanic legislation is one of the keys to ending legalized abortion, putting God back in schools, and winning the battle against gay marriage. We must fight this to win and we win by speaking God's Word against these evils forcefully, praying and living redeemed lives. Our Founders knew the power of free speech becasue they knew the inherent power of God's Word to change people's hearts.

Remember, our battle is not against flesh and blood, the pro-aborts, but against "arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God".

The Word of God must be proclaimed by the church, the called out, against the gates of hell and that fearlessly, without compromise and boldly.

Matthew 11:12 "From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and violent men take it by force."

Matthew 10:34 "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."

Luke 11:1-4 "It happened that while Jesus was praying in a certain place, after He had finished, one of His disciples said to Him, "Lord, teach us to pray just as John also taught his disciples."

And He said to them, "When you pray, say:
'Father, hallowed be Your name.
Your kingdom come.
3'Give us each day our daily bread.
4'And forgive us our sins,
For we ourselves also forgive everyone who is indebted to us.
And lead us not into temptation.'"

How ia God's will done here on earth? By proclaiming His word.

"Here I am, send me"


Posted by: HisMan at May 28, 2008 1:39 PM


I still believe that all the American laity need relief from the IRS. (punitive tax system)

I would prefer abolishing the IRS and instead endorsing the Fair Tax system... for a time.

God Bless. (Wow, can I still say that without fear of an IRS audit?)

PS. I still think you should be a vice presidential candidate.

Posted by: Guy S. at May 28, 2008 1:43 PM


JohnS:

You're exactly right. God is not a Republican.

However, you are absolutely wrong to think that Liberal policies are in any way based on Biblical principles.

Let me give you some examples:

1. God is all about preserving life, i.e., it is insane to think that God condones the termination of the expression of his will via an abortion. Abortion is murder.

2. God created the institution of marriage as being between one man and one woman, period.

3. It is clear that the Bible teaches that the practice of homosexuality is an abomination in the sight of God.

4. The Bible teaches that while we are to care for the poor, widows and orphans we are not to enable perfectly healthy men and women who can work by giving them money so they will vote for a particular candidate. This cheats all of us and serves to get unprincipled peple in office.

5. The Bible teaches that taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor apart from their permission is theft. Money is to be given cheerfully and without hesitation and not at threat or by coercion.

6. The Bible teaches that it is sin to protect those who are being attacked by evil. Hence, we have the doctrine of a justifiable war.

These are just a few: Now, tell me which political party more closely resembles those basic principles?

Which political party do most secualr humanists, atheists, agnostics, and down-right anti-Christians belong? Which political party took God and prayer out of schools, legalized abortion, promotes the welfare state, promotes the legalization of gay marriage, fights abstinence programs, promotes pre-marital sex, etc.?

I would say that God is not a Republican but more Republican follow Biblical principles than do Liberals.

When Democrats follow godly principles of government I will vote Democratic. And why is that John?

"Because blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord".

He is not our Lord if we do not do what He says.

Posted by: HisMan at May 28, 2008 2:59 PM


Jesus sounds like he was a heck of a Liberal, from what was written in the Bible.

Posted by: Doug at May 28, 2008 4:01 PM


Jesus was radical not liberal.

Posted by: Carla at May 28, 2008 4:04 PM


He was pretty liberal.

Posted by: Doug at May 28, 2008 5:45 PM


Hehe, yup, I'm pretty sure if Jesus came back today he'd be seen as a liberal.

He'd probably get drunk with a bunch of homosexuals at a gay bar (remember he was accused of being a drunkard and associating with those bad bad people).

He'd probably speak out against the war ("Blessed are the peacemakers") and get arrested and beaten by a conservative cop during an anti-war rally.

He'd probably throw a fit over the fact that we didn't help those people after Hurricane Katrina, and that we don't do much to help the poor or hungry.

Conservatives love capitalism, which has a funny way of eliminating the little guy by crushingly large businesses. It's actually the liberals who are all for helping other people get up to the same level. (Sure, not all programs are effective, but come on, it wasn't the liberals that cut funding to education, anti-violence programs, and other community aid programs)

He'd probably hate everyone who thought destroying the earth for our own gains was a good idea. And those people who hold themselves in higher regard than animals. Stewards? Ha!(Ecclesiastes 3:19 “For the fate of the sons of men and the fate of beasts is the same. As one dies so dies the other; indeed, they all have the same breath and there is no advantage for man over beast, for all is vanity.”)

Conservatives, by definition, support traditional views.

Jesus didn't. And that's why he was a liberal, and that's why he was crucified.

Of course you made liberal a dirty word, so dirty you don't want to associate your savior with that word. What misfortune has befallen all of us because of that.

Posted by: Edyt at May 28, 2008 6:25 PM


He'd probably get drunk with a bunch of homosexuals at a gay bar (remember he was accused of being a drunkard and associating with those bad bad people).

The operative word being "accused", Edyt. Nice way to try to spin things.

If Jesus was really so liberal as you say, why do you hate Him so?

Posted by: Bethany at May 28, 2008 6:36 PM


@Bethany: I don't think Edyt hates Jesus- do you have a post where she specifically says, "I hate Jesus- I think he's a massive douchebag"?

Posted by: Rae at May 28, 2008 8:22 PM


Rae, it just seems pretty clear (at least to me) from the way she has spoken in the last year that Christianity is the only religion she truly despises. I have seen her talk very kindly towards Islam, towards Hinduism and other types of religions, but when it comes to Christianity, she goes over the top trying to do anything she can to try to express how much she hates it. And I find it really, really difficult to think she can hate Christianity without hating Christ himself. That's just me.


Posted by: Bethany at May 28, 2008 9:28 PM


Jesus was never accused of being a drunkard. (Show me which Gospel has Jesus being accused of being a Drunkard). It is true that the pharisees were upset that he was eating with "sinners", which tax collectors were part of (Matthew the Gospel writer was once a Tax Collector.)

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at May 28, 2008 9:35 PM


@Bethany: I don't think it's Christianity itself she dislikes but the followers. A lot of the followers of Christianity don't exactly do the best "PR" for themselves...of course I could also totally say that about Islam as well.

I think on one hand Edyt's hostility towards Christianity could be due to her upbringing and her disillusionment that came with her being raised Christian and her noting of people who claimed to be Christian but did not act in a Christian manner. The same could be said for me as well...but i tend to keep my mouth shut on the issue unless somebody says something that *really* pisses me off.

Posted by: Rae at May 28, 2008 10:08 PM


Liz, read the Bible.

Luke 7:33-34:

For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine; and ye say, He hath a devil. The Son of man is come eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners!

That's actually a pretty good example of plagiarism in the Bible, since Matthew quotes nearly the exact same lines in 11:19:

For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil. The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.

Don't forget Jesus' first recorded miracle was turning water into wine, and at his last meal he drank wine with his disciples.

Luke and Matthew were actually plagiarized from the book of Mark (or whoever wrote that). And they did a pretty poor job of it, since they copied the same wrong geographical errors and contradicted each other on simple things, like Jesus' genealogy (not unusual, since Mark didn't write the genealogy). Pitiful job, really. Of course, they also plagiarized from ancient Greek texts too.

But you were talking about drinking, not Biblical errors or plagiarism. Carry on.

Posted by: Edyt at May 28, 2008 10:45 PM


Well, Bethany, then I must hate Santa Claus and leprechauns and fairies too, since I don't believe in those either.

Bring on a Muslim or a Hindu, and I'll enjoy challenging his or her faith. Christians are just very prevalent here, you know?

And so... so few of you... actually know what's written in your holy book. Which is really sad, since that's supposedly what you live by.

Posted by: Edyt at May 28, 2008 10:51 PM


Doug @ 4:01 PM

Jesus sounds like he was a heck of a Liberal, from what was written in the Bible.

Care to illuminate exactly what you are talking about?

Have you read the Gospels?

Edyt thinks drinking wine makes Jesus a liberal.

What does raising the dead (like Lazarus) or the little girl make him?

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at May 29, 2008 5:55 AM


Edyt said: And so... so few of you... actually know what's written in your holy book. Which is really sad, since that's supposedly what you live by.

Do you include yourself in that assessment - about not knowing what's in the Bible?

I'll agree with you - there is quite a difference between head knowledge and experiential "heart" knowledge - the latter being far more important.

However, we're not trying to make ourselves righteous by living according to the Scriptures.

We can't possibly do that. Grace and mercy are from God alone.

Salvation is a gift from God.

So when I say I would rather know Christ fully (and God's Word reveals him) it's only because one day, when he comes, His perfect Law will be written on our hearts.

And in that day Edyt, we could love even the most vile of sinners, because of who they are and not what they've done, and that would include ourselves - we have to forgive ourselves, because for those whose faith is in Christ are already forgiven.

I can't live by words written in a book - I only can live by Christ in my heart.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at May 29, 2008 6:07 AM


And so... so few of you... actually know what's written in your holy book. Which is really sad, since that's supposedly what you live by.

Posted by: Edyt at May 28, 2008 10:51 PM

This statement is completely unfair, and does not warrant further response.

Posted by: Janet at May 29, 2008 7:06 AM


No one has ANY business telling a pastor what he can say from the pulpit. Pastors have no business getting a 501c3. They already have an exclusion in 508c1a that recognizes that the church is exempt from taxation. This is what you get when you take the advice of an attorney over Christ.

Posted by: Tim M. at May 29, 2008 7:12 AM


I’m glad to hear that someone is speaking out on this abominable regulation. As a former pastor I don’t understand why a church would seek a tax exempt status anyway.

As I understand the IRS code a church can assume tax immunity without any kind of paperwork or concessions to the IRS. I’m almost sure I read it in the code at one time. Our church has never sought tax exemption but has assumed tax immunity.

I’m in the planning stage of working with the state legislature here to implement a policy that would make tax immunity a simple process to claim. That way we wouldn’t need a court battle for the tax exemption.

Posted by: Kris L. at May 29, 2008 7:14 AM


@Bethany: I don't think it's Christianity itself she dislikes but the followers. A lot of the followers of Christianity don't exactly do the best "PR" for themselves...of course I could also totally say that about Islam as well.

I think on one hand Edyt's hostility towards Christianity could be due to her upbringing and her disillusionment that came with her being raised Christian and her noting of people who claimed to be Christian but did not act in a Christian manner.

I agree.

I think that it is very unfair to paint us all in the same manner that she witnessed in her parents though. I think her parents did her a disservice by being bad examples of Christ (if they really did, I'm just assuming). Obviously Edyt has some anger issues towards her parents that need to be dealt with, instead of using her parents as a way to lash out at others who have done nothing to her.

You may not realize how terribly offensive Edyt's post about "liberal Jesus" was to a Christian. She was insulting our Lord and Saviour. That is a huge thing to us, and I really thought it was in very poor taste. I doubt seriously that she would EVER insult a muslim in the same way, mocking Mohammed and lying about him.

Posted by: Bethany at May 29, 2008 7:55 AM


Edyt , you're barking up the wrong tree!

Posted by: Janet at May 29, 2008 8:03 AM


"You may not realize how terribly offensive Edyt's post about "liberal Jesus" was to a Christian. She was insulting our Lord and Saviour."

I must say, Bethany, that I too found it quite offensive. I'm not saying I believe Jesus would be for the war or would shun homosexuals. It seemed that the post had more of a mocking tone than anything. I could be wrong.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at May 29, 2008 8:16 AM


I didn't have time to touch on Edyt's post very long yesterday, so here goes:

Hehe, yup, I'm pretty sure if Jesus came back today he'd be seen as a liberal.
He'd probably get drunk with a bunch of homosexuals at a gay bar (remember he was accused of being a drunkard and associating with those bad bad people).

First of all, this is incredibly offensive, and you know that.

Jesus would not have gotten drunk. Jesus did indeed drink wine but he never drank to excess.

He did spend time with those who were sinners, to preach to them about repentance, Edyt, not to participate in their sinful deeds. He spoke to those sinners who recognized that they were sinners, as opposed to the Pharisees who were also sinners, but believed they had no need of a Savior and believed they were righteous. Jesus said that He "came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance".

He'd probably speak out against the war ("Blessed are the peacemakers")

Blessed are the peacemakers refers to the way we treat individuals in our daily life and does not refer to war, Edyt. Jesus also said ""Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."
Take that as you will, but reading the verses all in their context might help you understand better what Christ was saying in each of these situations. Ripping verses out of their intended context and putting a deliberate spin on them is dishonest.

and get arrested and beaten by a conservative cop during an anti-war rally.

Read the above...

He'd probably throw a fit over the fact that we didn't help those people after Hurricane Katrina, and that we don't do much to help the poor or hungry.

Who is "we", Edyt? I personally know several people who donated goods to Katrina victims, and I know of some in my area who let them live within their homes.

He'd probably hate everyone who thought destroying the earth for our own gains was a good idea. And those people who hold themselves in higher regard than animals. Stewards? Ha!(Ecclesiastes 3:19 “For the fate of the sons of men and the fate of beasts is the same. As one dies so dies the other; indeed, they all have the same breath and there is no advantage for man over beast, for all is vanity.”)

Again, this is ripping a verse out of it's intended context, Edyt.

The point of the context is that our life on earth is vanity. We have no advantage over the animals in the fact that we all die. However, you and I both know that the Bible clearly states that we are above the animals. If Jesus felt that the animals were on our level, Edyt, then why did he cure people who had devils, but allowed thousands of healthy pigs to be possessed by devils and drowned in the water?
Why did Jesus eat broiled fish, and why did he feed 5,000 with fish?
Jesus ate passover with his disciples. The passover involves killing and eating a lamb.
Amazing....seems that you are the one with the lack of Biblical knowledge, not Christians.

Conservatives, by definition, support traditional views.
Jesus didn't. And that's why he was a liberal, and that's why he was crucified.

He was not a liberal. He was crucified because He said He was the Son of God, not because He had "liberal" views. Is it a typical "liberal" thing to claim you are the Son of God? Didn't think so.

Posted by: Bethany at May 29, 2008 8:32 AM


I must say, Bethany, that I too found it quite offensive. I'm not saying I believe Jesus would be for the war or would shun homosexuals. It seemed that the post had more of a mocking tone than anything. I could be wrong.

Yes, exactly Bobby. It was the mocking manner which was most insulting. Edyt knew exactly what she was doing too. She came from a Christian family and she knows exactly what to say to offend.

Posted by: Bethany at May 29, 2008 8:34 AM


"You may not realize how terribly offensive Edyt's post about "liberal Jesus" was to a Christian. She was insulting our Lord and Saviour. That is a huge thing to us, and I really thought it was in very poor taste. I doubt seriously that she would EVER insult a muslim in the same way, mocking Mohammed and lying about him. "

I don't see how it was offensive- I can see how it was possibly misrepresentative and slightly mocking- but yeah. :-/

I do see your point about Islam/Muhammad- but again, I think her apparent dislike for Christianity due to bad personal experiences with it lead her to behave the way she does. I would imagine she'd be just as critical of Islam if she had more personal experience with it.

Posted by: Rae at May 29, 2008 8:36 AM


I don't see how it was offensive- I can see how it was possibly misrepresentative and slightly mocking- but yeah. :-/

Rae, if you can't see how it is offensive, it's okay...you don't have to. It just means you don't understand what Christ means to us.

Posted by: Bethany at May 29, 2008 8:44 AM


And you're absolutely right- I don't.

But I do have one more thing to say about the whole, "Is Jesus a liberal or a conservative?"

My answer is this: Does it really freaking matter? I think it's mildly assinine to try to categorize a religion's figurehead into modern day political ideologies.

Posted by: Rae at May 29, 2008 9:06 AM


Bethany @ 8:34 AM

Bethany - my mother used to say (and still does) that all the world's mockery of our Lord and Savior is simple proof of who He is, and what God says is true. I believe she's right.

Mockery says much more about the mocker, than the one being mocked. Why be insulted?

One could easily point to passages where Satan took Scripture out of context and threw it into our Lord's face. Jesus rebuked him with Scripture. Edyt doesn't know Scripture and such conjecture is simply childish.

If anything, Edyt needs much love. She'll say she doesn't but it has become completely apparent she does.

There are those who are blind, groping in the darkness because they've never been exposed to the Light, and there are those who having gazed upon Him, failed to avert their eyes in humble reverence, and have been blinded by the Light. I think Chesterton said that - or something like it.

Let's not be so offended that we miss hearing the cry of one in pain.


Posted by: Chris Arsenault at May 29, 2008 9:08 AM


It matters because of what she's insinuating that he would have supported. Not really as much about the title of "liberal"... She could have used the word "conservative" instead of liberal, and her post would have still been just as offensive because of all the things she was implying.

Posted by: Bethany at May 29, 2008 9:10 AM


You're right, Chris. Absolutely right. Sometimes it's hard for me to remember, and I let my emotions rather than logic respond.

Posted by: Bethany at May 29, 2008 9:12 AM


"It matters because of what she's insinuating that he would have supported. Not really as much about the title of "liberal"... She could have used the word "conservative" instead of liberal, and her post would have still been just as offensive because of all the things she was implying."

And I can think of examples in which conservatives have done the *exact* same thing.

Now, who said, "Jesus was the first Republican"?

Posted by: Rae at May 29, 2008 9:15 AM


Rae, I think you might misunderstand my point. Again, it's not the title that bothers me so much as the actions that were implied in the post. Jesus would have never done any of those things that were suggested, and that is what I am trying to say.

Posted by: Bethany at May 29, 2008 9:18 AM


Fine.

I'm going to drop this.

Posted by: Rae at May 29, 2008 9:28 AM


Just this morning catholic.org had a good article which somewhat loosely addresses this. I think it may put some of this in perspective http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=28078

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at May 29, 2008 9:32 AM


I hope I didn't offend you, Rae!

Posted by: Bethany at May 29, 2008 9:32 AM


I'm glad the pastors are challenging the IRS on this issue...

I just wish that more pastors would be willing to just do without the tax exemption and preach what they know is right regardless.

Posted by: Bethany at May 29, 2008 9:49 AM


Wasn’t Jesus A Liberal?
by Gary Vance

Liberalism has been under assault for years now. The battering of this grand political philosophy has altered the contemporary definition of liberal to the point that Conservatives use it as a profane word. They use it to paint a political opponent as anti-God and anti-American. It has gotten to the point that moderate and liberal Christians are afraid to be open about their political leanings. Sadly, it even affects their conscience and choices as they enter the voting booth. This is particularly troubling to me as a Christian evangelical minister who loves America.

Liberalism as defined by Webster’s Third New International Dictionary: “a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of man, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for tolerance and freedom for the individual from arbitrary authority in all spheres of life…”

I am not sure why anyone would feel threatened by Liberalism as defined by the dictionary. They are apparently unaware or simply refuse to acknowledge the long history of liberals who have labored for the betterment of society and the furthering of God’s Kingdom.

The labor movement of the early twentieth century was aided significantly when major Christian denominations got behind it. No average American would have a fair wage today if it weren’t for liberal Christians and labor activists. Liberal Christians and civil rights activists fought and still fight against conservative America for racial equality. Child labor laws were enacted because liberals fought for them. Medicare and Social Security exist today because of Liberalism. “Bleeding heart liberals” have long advocated for the homeless, the hungry, the less fortunate, and the disenfranchised. The women of America owe liberals a big thank you for their almost equal rights. “Tree hugging liberals” fight for clean air and water standards instead of favoring industrial polluters and short term profiteering that destroy God’s green earth.

Liberals believe in affordable health care for all U.S. citizens. They also believe in higher taxes for the rich and lower taxes for the middle class and the poor. Liberals love their spouses and children. Liberals faithfully attend their churches to worship God. Liberals love America and hate terrorism and have proved it by fighting in every war for this country. Liberals come in all shapes, sizes, and color. They are found in the ranks of Protestants, Catholics, Jews, agnostics, and atheists.

Conservative Republican policies generally favor the wealthy and ignore the needs of the poor. Their policies are so often greed-driven, with no concern for the environmental or societal consequences for their exploitive actions. Jesus plainly taught that the love of money is the root of all evil. So, Christians can go after the various “fruit” of sin in our society, but they won’t see the real change for the better until the axe is laid to the root. Christians should oppose greed-driven policies as a primary point of political concern.

I am sick of reading letters to the editor and editorials that paint Democrats and liberals as anti-God and anti-American and that portray conservative Republicans as the only true Christian patriots. We know that many Democrats are pro-choice and many support gay issues and this troubles most evangelicals. Democrats also support causes that should be of Christian concern that go untouched by Republicans. I have listed some in the above paragraphs. True prophetic vision sees that there is great need for repentance on the left and the right. The effects of powerful lobbyists, special interest groups, greed and corruption abound on both sides of the aisles of Congress. God sees it all and so should Christians. Christian voters need to see that God’s heart breaks over more than just a few political and moral issues. It is time to take off our blinders and mourn for the sorry state of affairs that is American politics.

Jesus was the ultimate liberal progressive revolutionary of all history. The conservative religious and social structure that He defied hated and crucified Him. They examined His life and did not like what they saw. He aligned Himself with the poor and the oppressed. He challenged the religious orthodoxy of His day. He advocated pacifism and loving our enemies. He liberated women and minorities from oppression. He healed on the Sabbath and forgave adulterers and prostitutes. He associated with drunks and other social outcasts. He rebuked the religious right of His day because they embraced the letter of the law instead of the Spirit. He loved sinners and called them to Himself. Jesus was the original Liberal. He was a progressive, and He was judged and hated for it. It was the self-righteous religionists that He rebuked and He called them hypocrites.

The primary issues of Christian Liberalism were birthed when Jesus spoke the profoundly prophetic words found in Matthew 25: 31-46. These scriptures reveal God’s heart for the poor, the sick and other neglected people through out history. Christians should read this text and judge for themselves which of the two groups mentioned there more accurately reflect the political parties of today. His Liberalism lives on today and the issues have not changed much.

I am glad that conservative Republican candidates advocate for the family and a few Christian issues, but we must quit pretending that they are the only ones that Christians should consider voting for. People should not call themselves pro-life if they are only anti-abortion and yet feel no twinge of conscience over the unfair application of capital punishment or wars fought for dubious motives. A true pro-life position cares just as passionately for the born as the un-born and views war as a last resort when all other options are exhausted.

Christians should look for candidates that will work for issues that are of importance to Christ and that can be tackled legislatively. Sadly, most of those causes have historically been opposed, ignored, and minimized by conservative Republican policy makers. They seem to dangle the moral issues carrot around election time. Then, even with a Republican controlled White House and Congress, prove themselves powerless to do anything about those issues when they convene to legislate. Issues such as eliminating poverty and homelessness in America, true equal rights for all citizens, environmental protection, a fair minimum wage, affordable health care, and lowering our infant mortality rate all go unattended. That’s just to name a few.

I have some questions for the Christian Right. Why have you not held our current elected majority officials accountable for their failure to address the full spectrum of Christian issues? Why would you vote for them again?

It is time for Christians of conscience to stand up to religious and political hypocrisy. Christians should proudly proclaim progressive values today and should advocate for the Christian Liberalism that is our heritage and our legacy.

Posted by: Edyt at May 29, 2008 9:51 AM


You didn't offend me...I'm just in a really *shite* mood and I was just getting frustrated, so I felt it would be better to just walk away as opposed to saying something I more than likely would regret.

Posted by: Rae at May 29, 2008 10:00 AM


Bethany, it's you who make a mockery of your god by making him out to support conservative values. For his entire life he challenged tradition and institution. He was broad minded and generous and tolerant. He would be disgusted with conservatives today for their outright racism and sexism (much of which I've seen exhibited on this blog), he'd be upset by our unwelcome immigration policies, desire to keep health insurance out of the hands of the sick, the outright hate crimes against minorities and GLBT persons, and conservatives who only sympathize with other white, privileged persons, rather than treat everyone as equal. Liberals are the people who care to create social change to help all people.

Posted by: Edyt at May 29, 2008 10:14 AM


Edyt: Bethany would not mock Jesus. Are you trying to start a war?

Read Bobby's link above for an interesting perspective on conservative/liberal (progressive) labels.

Posted by: Janet at May 29, 2008 10:22 AM


Bobby 9:32, God will provide! :)

Posted by: Janet at May 29, 2008 10:24 AM


Is Edyt trying to start a war?.....probably.

Posted by: heather at May 29, 2008 10:24 AM


I'll just pray for you, Edyt. What else can I do.

Posted by: Bethany at May 29, 2008 10:26 AM


Rae, I'm glad you aren't angry with me. :-)

Posted by: Bethany at May 29, 2008 10:31 AM


Bobby @ 9:32 AM Bingo! Good article. Thanks!

Lately I've been seeing Chesterton popping up in a number of different places, and not always where I expected to find him.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at May 29, 2008 10:35 AM


I actually really enjoy Ray Dubuque's website: Liberals Like Christ. Back when I actually didn't doubt my religion, it helped me realize that Jesus would in no way want what most Christians exhibited.

Every once in awhile I check back to see if he's written anything new. :)

Posted by: Edyt at May 29, 2008 10:38 AM


Edyt - do you think it's possible that Ray Dubuque might be wrong?

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at May 29, 2008 11:06 AM


Angels can fly because they take themselves lightly.

--GK Chesterton

Posted by: Doug at May 29, 2008 11:14 AM


Edyt, I guess you believe what you believe. Look at the Scientologists. They are basing their beliefs on something that a Sci-Fi writer wrote. How do you feel about them?

Posted by: heather at May 29, 2008 11:16 AM


Maybe the Mother Ship will be along soon to pick them all up.

Posted by: heather at May 29, 2008 11:37 AM


Nice quote, Doug.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at May 29, 2008 12:08 PM


I have a semi-related question:
When I was growing up, the generic term for "Christian religious leader" was "minister." When did that change over to "pastor"?

Posted by: Rosie at May 29, 2008 12:12 PM


All: FYI, I'm having trouble with my software. I can't even post any new posts. They won't go live. No one is sorrier than me about this. :(

Posted by: Jill Stanek at May 29, 2008 12:54 PM


Any error messages Jill?

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at May 29, 2008 1:57 PM


Bobby and Bethany,

When I taught preschool, parents would come in to class on the first day and tell us that Billy or Mary (well, actually their names were more like Ashwayria and Dhruv) could say all of their ABC's.

We'd smile. And then roll our eyes. Many 3 and 4 year olds can recite their abcs but very few have a clue what those letters actually stand for.

Memorizing a thing is not the same as understanding it, if you get my drift...

Edyt,

While you are entitled to your opinion, I have to agree that that post was mean spirited. It certainly shut down all lines of communication and it caused pain to two people that I care very much about.

While I agree with you that there are many people that wear the Christian label who are anything but, and Jesus would be appalled that they claim to be His followers, you didn't exactly do such a great job of setting an example yourself.

I understand what you were trying to say, (at least I think I do), but Jesus was faced with the exact same challenges back then as He would be today. Hypocrisy. Pharisees claiming to understand God. Rich men hoarding money while widows gave their last pennies...and yet he managed to enlighten those who were willing to listen, not by mocking who they were, but by loving who they could be. He loved even those who made fun of Him, hurt His followers, killed Him and corrupted the world. He loves you too.

He was not a liberal, except that He came to liberate man from himself. He was not a conservative, except that he came to conserve what His father had given us.

What He really was/is, was a rebel.


All the streets are filled with laughter and light
And the music of the season
And the merchants windows are all bright
With the faces of the children
And the families hurrying to their homes
As the sky darkens and freezes
They'll be gathering around the hearths and tales
Giving thanks for all gods graces
And the birth of the rebel, jesus
*
Well they call him by the prince of peace
And they call him by the savior
And they pray to him upon the seas
And in every bold endeavor
As they fill his churches with their pride and gold
And their faith in him increases
But theyve turned the nature that I worshipped in
From a temple to a robbers den
In the words of the rebel jesus
*
We guard our world with locks and guns
And we guard our fine possessions
And once a year when christmas comes
We give to our relations
And perhaps we give a little to the poor
If the generosity should seize us
But if any one of us should interfere
In the business of why they are poor
They get the same as the rebel jesus
*
But please forgive me if I seem
To take the tone of judgement
For Ive no wish to come between
This day and your enjoyment
In this life of hardship and of earthly toil
We have need for anything that frees us
So I bid you pleasure
And I bid you cheer
From a heathen and a pagan
On the side of the rebel jesus.

Posted by: mk at May 29, 2008 7:25 PM


Karen at the Families against Planned Parenthood web site is asking for everyone's special prayers. A 14 year old couple is scheduled to have an abortion at 7 AM tomorrow (Friday) morning. They are being pressured by their parents. Please pray that they change their minds and do not go through with the abortion.

(Perhaps they can find a couple to adopt their baby?)

Posted by: Janet at May 29, 2008 8:00 PM


I could find them a couple in new york minute...

Posted by: mk at May 29, 2008 8:20 PM


I would take their baby!

Posted by: Bethany at May 29, 2008 8:38 PM


Really, mk? How?

Posted by: Janet at May 29, 2008 9:33 PM


Here's a link to FVFAPP's blog for those who want updates:
http://familiesagainstplannedparenthood.org/blog/2008/0520/protest05/#comments

Posted by: Janet at May 29, 2008 9:52 PM


mk, Bethany, You guys are awesome!

Posted by: Janet at May 29, 2008 9:55 PM


Edyt, you said:

"Hehe, yup, I'm pretty sure if Jesus came back today he'd be seen as a liberal.

He'd probably get drunk with a bunch of homosexuals at a gay bar (remember he was accused of being a drunkard and associating with those bad bad people)."

Jesus never sinned so he didn't get drunk. What you said was actually blashemous. He may have associated with sinners and drunkards, however, never once did he get drunk or partake in their sinful behavior.

"He'd probably speak out against the war ("Blessed are the peacemakers") and get arrested and beaten by a conservative cop during an anti-war rally."

The peace Jesus is talking about is the peace between fallen mankind and their Creator. Wars result when good men stand against evil men. If Jesus hated the military like you did He would not have described the faith of the Roman Centurion as the greatest in all of Israel.

"He'd probably throw a fit over the fact that we didn't help those people after Hurricane Katrina, and that we don't do much to help the poor or hungry."

Do you know what Katrina means Edyt? It measn cleansing. Think about it. And who answere the call there? Yep, the churches did. Yes even this conservative spent a week in LA at the Dream Center working 18 hours a day helping many displaced people from their get settled in. What did you do? Also, Jesus said, "the poor you will always have with you". In God's mind it is not the lack of material wealth that makes one poor, it's the lack of a relationship with God that makes one absolutely naked and wretched and without hope. True wealth is found in right realtionship with God (righteousness), not money, not stuff, not in an abudnance of anything on this earth. "Seek ye first the Kingdom of Heaven and it's righteousness and all these things will be added unti you".

"Conservatives love capitalism, which has a funny way of eliminating the little guy by crushingly large businesses. It's actually the liberals who are all for helping other people get up to the same level. (Sure, not all programs are effective, but come on, it wasn't the liberals that cut funding to education, anti-violence programs, and other community aid programs)"

Wrong again Edyt. If you understood God's Word there's the parable of the talents. It's about people who use their talents get more and those who bury their talents get even the stuff those with more have. Read it and then complain to God's about His view of economy.

"He'd probably hate everyone who thought destroying the earth for our own gains was a good idea. And those people who hold themselves in higher regard than animals. Stewards? Ha!(Ecclesiastes 3:19 “For the fate of the sons of men and the fate of beasts is the same. As one dies so dies the other; indeed, they all have the same breath and there is no advantage for man over beast, for all is vanity.”)"


Again misquoting Scripture. Actually God loves everyone unconditionally. In Ecclesiastes where you lifted that scipture verse from, Solomon, the wisest man who ever lived was lamenting that even with all his wisdom, he had realized that the best and only thing a person should seek in this life is to obey God and seek His will.

"Conservatives, by definition, support traditional views."

Yes, there's nothing new under the sun. Conservatives use the priciples that have proven successful and learned over generations.

"Jesus didn't. And that's why he was a liberal, and that's why he was crucified."

No, Jesus was crucified for the sins of the world. And he did it willingly so you and I might be saved from the consequences of our sin.

Edyt, I know you think that you know and understand Scripture but you don't. You use it for your own ends to support what you want to believe. Remember, God is extremely offended at this type of exegesis.

Posted by: HisMan at May 29, 2008 11:30 PM


Janet,

Well, Bethany for one! LOL. And every newspaper has couples asking for children. Plus our parish priest has told me that if I ever hear of someone that wants to give their baby up, I should let him know because he knows couples that want to adopt.

You could also contact any adoption lawyers, or Catholic Charities...the waiting list to adopt is a minimum of a year. Many, many couples...no babies.

Posted by: mk at May 30, 2008 5:23 AM


Edyt, I know you think that you know and understand Scripture but you don't. You use it for your own ends to support what you want to believe. Remember, God is extremely offended at this type of exegesis.

The difference between knowing you ABC's and knowing how to read.

Posted by: mk at May 30, 2008 5:26 AM


Good analogy, Marykay, about the ABC's..very relevant.

Posted by: Bethany at May 30, 2008 6:24 AM


I know it is sacreligious on the Jill Stanek site, but Jesus had NOTHING to say about abortion (which was routinely practiced at the time) or homosexuality. He did have a lot to say about helping the poor, the sick, and he did spend a lot of time with the marginalized "sinners" of society. He also had harsh words for the Pharisees that, much like today's religious right, thundered about sin and their own personal purity and piety. So you tell me which party Jesus would join, huh?

P.s. I think Huckabee was right, Jesus would be smart enought to stay out of politics.

Posted by: JohnS at May 30, 2008 8:19 AM


I believe he said "Thou shall not kill"

Posted by: heather at May 30, 2008 8:29 AM


Homosexuality is an abomination, so both issues were indeed addressed.

Posted by: heather at May 30, 2008 8:31 AM


And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female, “and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh?’” (Matt. 19:4.)

“For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” (John 5:46-47.)

Posted by: Bethany at May 30, 2008 9:38 AM


Btw, Homosexuality and abortion are morality issues, not a political issues... Jesus never (in the new testament) directly condemned pedophilia, sodomy, rape, bestiality, or a lot of other specific sins...but that doesn't mean He supported them. If Jesus is God, then it wouldn't make sense to say that He would contradict Himself from one Testament to the other.

Posted by: Bethany at May 30, 2008 9:42 AM


JohnS - ever hear of loving your neighbor? I believe he called that a commandment like the one where you are called to love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind soul and strength. (Sh'ma Y'Israel - Deut 6:4)

The only way you can say such a statement re: abortion is for you to ignore the fact that the unborn are human beings, full fledged human beings from the moment of conception on. For the mother, you can't get any closer "neighbor' than your own child. And killing the child - abortion does kill a child - otherwise, she wouldn't be "pregnant", is not loving that child. We don't kill each other and call it love. Not if you're sane.

P.s. I think Huckabee was right, Jesus would be smart enought to stay out of politics.

Correction - Jesus is completely involved in politics - He's King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

One thing people really hate is that the Kingdom of God is not a democracy, and those who break the law cannot get away from justice.

CS Lewis said: "Jesus is either Lord, a liar or a lunatic." I believe he's Lord for many substantial reasons.

If as he said in John 14:6: "I am the way, the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father, except by me." is true, then you might want to really dig in to what he said, because one day you'll be face to face with Him. The last thing you want to be doing is saying something untrue about Him.

I've broken His law - what about you?

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at May 30, 2008 9:55 AM


"One thing people really hate is that the Kingdom of God is not a democracy, and those who break the law cannot get away from justice."

AMEN!

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at May 30, 2008 10:03 AM


1. "Thou shalt not kill" begs the question, is abortion killing? And if so, is it justified? God commanded the Hebrews to kill ALOT of people in the OT, so killing is obviously not just prohibited like in Buddhism for instance. It's strange that this issue that is so central to right-wing Christianity today is never even touched on in the Bible.

2. Jesus never called homosexuality an "abomination" that's in Leviticus. And if we followed Leviticus no one would eat ham, cheeseburgers, or shrimp. It's not in the 10 Commandments, and Jesus never spoke on it, so I think the verdict is still out on homosexuality. A ban on homosexuality may have some value to a struggling band of nomads trying to capture a country, and make little sense in modern first-world democratic egalitarian societies. And Paul had a bit of the Pharisee left in him.

3. No one here is God or has the right to claim to speak for him. I think the fundies of the world may find a lot of what they had to say about Him was wrong when the meet Jesus face to face....

Posted by: JohnS at May 30, 2008 10:10 AM


John, what if Jesus did say abortion and homosexuality were wrong? Would you then believe that they are wrong?

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at May 30, 2008 10:38 AM


Abortion IS killing. Who would ever question that?

Posted by: heather at May 30, 2008 10:41 AM


3. No one here is God or has the right to claim to speak for him.

Hmm - Mt 28:18: The Jesus came to them and said "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

Disciples teaching disciples, calling for repentance and forgiveness, bringing Good News of God's plan of salvation, for his Kingdom. Authorized by the Lord.

Yeah, looks like he granted the right to speak truthfully for him.

John - those of us who know the Lord - we've already met him face to face. He showed me that no matter how bad I was, he wanted me.

He loves you John.

We can't change your heart, that's up to you and God. Love must be freely given.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at May 30, 2008 10:58 AM


Chris, I don't think you were around in 33 A.D. There is a concept called Apostolic succession that says that this empowering of the disciples passed down thru the Church, so maybe Pope Benedict has the right to speak, if you buy into that. But keep in mind that if you are right then everyone from the Unitarians to the Pentacostals have the right to "speak" for God, and those groups are going to have very different (and often contradictory) things to say. Jim Jones, David Koresh, the Morman guy in Texas with all the child brides, they all say they speak for God. God left us a collection of Books that you can read and try to figure out what he meant. People come to different conclusions on that, and that's not going to change. My point is if you think yours, and only your interpretation, is correct, keep in mind lots of other people with different interpretation think that also.

Bobby, if He did, he probably would have explained why, which would be helpful. Abortion is a hard one no doubt, it certainly looks like murder. Homosexuality is more iffy, hard to see in the 21st century what harm 3-5% of the population being gay does to society, so why ban it?

Posted by: JohnS at May 30, 2008 12:14 PM


Edyt, I know you think that you know and understand Scripture but you don't. You use it for your own ends to support what you want to believe. Remember, God is extremely offended at this type of exegesis.

Oh please, you're all no better. Homosexuality is one that you all have misunderstood. It's either one of those pick-and-choose verses or you don't understand the cultural differences.

Posted by: Edyt at May 30, 2008 12:49 PM


EVERYONE uses the Bible to support their own view. You can pretty much pick and chose here and there to support both sides of most moral debates. One person's "exegesis" is another persons "Word of God given once and for all time."

Posted by: JohnS at May 30, 2008 1:05 PM


John S: "Thou shalt not kill" begs the question, is abortion killing? And if so, is it justified? God commanded the Hebrews to kill ALOT of people in the OT, so killing is obviously not just prohibited like in Buddhism for instance. It's strange that this issue that is so central to right-wing Christianity today is never even touched on in the Bible.

Right - the meaning in all Bible versions, and the actual wording in some, is "thou shalt not murder," and abortion was not held to be murder in biblical times. Obviously, it's not really like "all killing" was prohibited in the Old Testament....

Posted by: Doug at May 30, 2008 2:09 PM


JohnS - Does your in-depth studies of the Old Testament and New Testament validate what's been passed on through the last two millennium?

David Koresh, Jim Jones, etc.? Should I treat your comments seriously with this kind of correlation?

My point is if you think yours, and only your interpretation, is correct, keep in mind lots of other people with different interpretation think that also.

Yes - but it's really hard to avoid what Jesus said in John 14:6. That's a major truth claim that can't be avoided, just as no one can deny that Jesus Christ (Y'shua haMashiach) didn't impact the entire world, which happens to fulfill ancient messianic prophecy. I'm not claiming perfection - that's why He's my advocate.

EVERYONE uses the Bible to support their own view. You can pretty much pick and chose here and there to support both sides of most moral debates.

Such picking and choosing would be wrong - it's interesting that you raise that as a point in defense of your argument. It says a great deal about your perspective. The question is - and always comes down to: "what do you believe?"

John, any argument you might have is not with me, because ultimately I'm not the judge - He is.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at May 30, 2008 3:09 PM


Right - the meaning in all Bible versions, and the actual wording in some, is "thou shalt not murder," and abortion was not held to be murder in biblical times.

Doug - look up Exodus 23:7.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at May 30, 2008 3:25 PM


Edyt, I know you think that you know and understand Scripture but you don't. You use it for your own ends to support what you want to believe. Remember, God is extremely offended at this type of exegesis.

Oh please, you're all no better. Homosexuality is one that you all have misunderstood. It's either one of those pick-and-choose verses or you don't understand the cultural differences.
Posted by: Edyt at May 30, 2008 12:49 PM

Edyt, God created man and woman as a special relationship where the two join together and become one. How else would you interpret that?

Posted by: truthseeker at May 30, 2008 5:45 PM


He'd probably get drunk with a bunch of homosexuals at a gay bar (remember he was accused of being a drunkard and associating with those bad bad people).
Posted by: Edyt at May 28, 2008 6:25 PM

Edyt, you are the queen of blaspheme. Jesus would be all right. But he wouldn't be drunk, he spoke out against drunkeness during his life so I don;t know where you get your ideas from. And he would be telling the homos to repent and believe the Good News of scripture. And nowhere in Scripture does Jesus about "relations" does he condone homosexuality. The truth of Christian faith is not something you seek, rather you just like to post blasphemey and get a rise out Christians of faith.

Posted by: truthseeker at May 30, 2008 5:52 PM


He'd probably get drunk with a bunch of homosexuals at a gay bar (remember he was accused of being a drunkard and associating with those bad bad people).
Posted by: Edyt at May 28, 2008 6:25 PM

Edyt, you are the queen of blaspheme. Jesus would be at the gay bar all right. But he wouldn't be drunk, he spoke out against drunkeness during his life so I don't know where you get your ideas from. And he would be telling the homos to repent and believe the Good News of scripture. And nowhere in Scripture does Jesus teaching about "relations" does he condone homosexuality. Rather he teaches about the purity and goodnes of man and woman living infidelity together. It is becoming apparent that the truth of Christian faith is not something you seek, rather you just like to post blasphemey and get a rise out Christians of faith. Your statement that Jesus would be a drunkard is no more than a bold-faced lie. I grow tired of excusing your lies as ignorance and I am beginning to lose all respect for your posts.

Posted by: truthseeker at May 30, 2008 5:59 PM


Truthseeker, likewise.

Posted by: heather at May 30, 2008 6:30 PM


Where in the Bible did Jesus speak out against either drunkenness or homosexuality? Where did he declare unions were only between a man and a woman? And why did he turn water into wine so more people could drink?

Posted by: Edyt at May 30, 2008 7:40 PM


Edyt,
Drunkards are people who put themselves in an "abnormal state" characterized by mental black-outs and lack of physical coordination. Putting yourself in this "state" makes you much less cable of serving others and actually makes you likely to unwittedly hurt others. Each time you get drunk and put yourself in this "state" you are losing your sensibilities and putting the Lord your God to the test. Jesus spoke out against doing this when the Devil was tempting him in the desert.

This is why your "literal" approach to the Bible is so lacking. Jesus didn't tell you specifically "do not get drunk" so you take that and twist it into meaning he did not teach against drunkenness. When you post such preposterous things it diminishes any feelings I have that you are interested in any genuine discussions about Jesus teachings.

I would love to tell you in detail about the meanings in the "Miracle at the Wedding in Cana". Before I give you a more detailed explanation of this wonderful beginning of Jesus public ministry, please tell me first, what part of Jesus mission to love others you could fulfill better in a drunken state?

Posted by: truthseeker at May 30, 2008 11:46 PM


Should have read:
I would love to tell you in detail about the meanings in the "Miracle at the Wedding in Cana". Before I give you a more detailed explanation of this wonderful beginning of Jesus public ministry, please tell me first, what part of Jesus mission to love others you could YOU fulfill better in a drunken state?

Posted by: ts at May 30, 2008 11:49 PM


Truthseeker, likewise.
Posted by: heather at May 30, 2008 6:30 PM

Hello Heather, it is good to see you posting again.

Posted by: truthseeker at May 31, 2008 1:30 AM


"Right - the meaning in all Bible versions, and the actual wording in some, is "thou shalt not murder," and abortion was not held to be murder in biblical times."

Doug - look up Exodus 23:7.

And add all the orders for killing, rules for killing, etc., and in no way was killing, per se, prohibited.

Posted by: Doug at June 1, 2008 12:06 AM


Exodus 23:7:

Have nothing to do with a false charge and do not put an innocent or honest person to death, for I will not acquit the guilty.

Ok so? Don't kill innocent people...what's the point? Abortion, as pointed out earlier, was not considered this back in Biblical times...why?

Posted by: JohnS at June 1, 2008 10:28 AM


Ok so? Don't kill innocent people...what's the point? Abortion, as pointed out earlier, was not considered this back in Biblical times...why?

Posted by: JohnS at June 1, 2008 10:28 AM

It was a given. Common sense. The bible says we are created in the image and likeness of God, therefore God would not condone the killing of His children. It goes without saying.


Posted by: Janet at June 2, 2008 12:15 PM


cheap ultram

Posted by: HsvsRsvsesv at October 12, 2008 8:35 PM