The Obama Message

[BobRyan]

good points all - missionlady!

I know that the politcally active position that the early SDA church took on moral issues such as "value of human life" and even on "health reform" pushing for an ammendment to the constitution would certainly be able to "See" the Lev 18 moral issue with the gay agenda and have clarity in how to address it today.

BTW here is the link to the "How would Ellen White Vote" article that Carlos Medley posted on this message board.

http://www.adventistreview.org/issue.php?issue=2008-1525&page=8

Here is one quote from that article

Quote:

On the other hand, a few short years later—after it turned out that many Adventists had participated in the election that year—an early General Conference session focused its thoughts on politics with this statement:

“Resolved, That in our judgment, the act of voting when exercised in behalf of justice, humanity and right, is in itself blameless, and may be at some times highly proper; but that the casting of any vote that shall strengthen the cause of such crimes as intemperance, insurrection, and slavery, we regard as highly criminal in the sight of Heaven. But we would deprecate any participation in the spirit of party strife.”2

hmm when it comes to infants - and the value of human life do we have an issue of "justice, humanity and right"?

And here is another

Quote:

In 1859 Ellen White came to the conclusion that voting—and voting for or against a given candidate—was an imperative when it advanced such values as temperance: “Men of intemperance have been in the office today in a 
flattering manner expressing their approbation of the course of the Sabbathkeepers not voting and expressed hopes that they will stick to their course and, like the Quakers, not cast their vote. Satan and his evil angels are busy at this time, and he has workers upon the earth. May Satan be disappointed, is my prayer.”6

Indeed, Ellen White’s plea to Adventists was to vote on issues of moral imperative beyond temperance: “Every individual exerts an influence in society. In our favored land, every voter has some voice in determining what laws shall control the nation. Should not that influence and that vote be cast on the side of temperance and virtue?”7

Even voting on the Sabbath was urged, if necessary, if matters of temperance and virtue arose. As Land notes, the pioneers “were very concerned with temperance.”8

Question left as an exercise for the reader "do you find issues of virtue - morals and value of human life to be involved in this election"?

in Christ,

Bob

[fccool]

Now, that's not what I'm saying! What I'm pointing out is that enforcement of the issue does not solve the issue, BECAUSE IT TARGETS THE RESULTS! IT DOES NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM! Can't you see that? It only amplifies it! What I'm pointing out, that instead of spending trillions on various wars, we need to spend it on education and curbing poverty. Instead of speaking to people in love we pull out a club.

WE NEED TO TARGET THE PROBLEMS, INSTEAD OF FOCUSING ON RESULTS... AND ABORTION AND ILLEGAL DRUGS ARE RESULTS OF UNDERLYING CAUSES. Rallying to outlaw the results will not solve the problems. The causes would be poverty, which is caused by lack of education and opportunity. The cause would be fear, which it its tern is cause by stigmatizing the issues and lack of understanding.

[missionlady]

I agree about the education part.

But I also think that to not outlaw crimes would be wrong.

What I believe in is both.

When my children were little and would reach for the stove, I wouldn't let them do it.

I "outlawed" it. But I didn't stop there. You are right, that would have only made it more appealing. I educated them and then directed their attention somewhere else.

[carolaa]

Originally Posted By: carolaa

Yet, if some had their way, Bravus's wife would be in jail for murder. Probably the doctor too. And maybe Bravus himself. It's really twisted thinking.

You really have no heart, do you? Who, in their right mind would condemn a person in this situation? But, you are very willing to USE this situation to justify the other 98% of abortions...THIS IS TWISTED THINKING.

I know plenty of people who would say this baby should have been carried to term and it would be up to God to decide when it died. I'm glad we agree that's twisted. But there are people who think abortion is wrong under any circumstances. And who is it that is going to make those decisions about whether it is criminal behavior or not? I don't believe it is our business to be getting in between a woman and her doctor. I believe our role as Christians is to help women make the best decision and to offer support.

[carolaa]

education on the horrors of abortion

This is one reason why abortion was legalized, because of the horrors of the do-it-yourself botched jobs.

[Tammy]

Originally Posted By: Tammy

You really have no heart, do you? Who, in their right mind would condemn a person in this situation? But, you are very willing to USE this situation to justify the other 98% of abortions...THIS IS TWISTED THINKING. [/quote']

I know plenty of people who would say this baby should have been carried to term and it would be up to God to decide when it died. I'm glad we agree that's twisted. But there are people who think abortion is wrong under any circumstances. And who is it that is going to make those decisions about whether it is criminal behavior or not? I don't believe it is our business to be getting in between a woman and her doctor. I believe our role as Christians is to help women make the best decision and to offer support.

Well, I'm not sure we do agree...I don't think it is twisted if a couple decided to carry a such a baby to term, but neither would I condemn a couple if they decided not to. I've heard of many stories where there was supposedly no hope for a baby....and when the baby was finally born, it was a normal, healthy baby. The point is, these circumstances are only 1.5% of all abortions! You are trying to use these situations to justify the other 98+%! We definently are not on the same page.

So, it is wrong to get between a woman and her Dr....but it is OK to kill a womans baby? what kind of a Dr. kills babies? Honestly, I don't know how they even have that name - DOCTOR - in 98% of the cases they should be called - MURDERER, for that is exactly what they are. A DOCTOR is supposed to save lives....not take lives. Now, that is twisted!

[carolaa]

"I don't think it is twisted if a couple decided to carry a such a baby to term, but neither would I condemn a couple if they decided not to. I've heard of many stories where there was supposedly no hope for a baby....and when the baby was finally born, it was a normal, healthy baby."

I agree with that. And I think we agree that it is twisted to force a woman to carry such a baby to term just so it can die a few hours later.

I am not pro-abortion. I wish there were no abortions. But it's not the real world. I would be in favor of some restrictions on abortion.

Before I join the group that would force women to carry unwanted babies, I want to know exactly who it is that decides whether a woman who has an abortion (and/or her doctor and/or her partner) is a criminal that should go to jail. And under what circumstances such a decision would be made.

[Tammy]

I am not pro-abortion. I wish there were no abortions. But it's not the real world. I would be in favor of some restrictions on abortion.

Before I join the group that would force women to carry unwanted babies, I want to know exactly who it is that decides whether a woman who has an abortion (and/or her doctor and/or her partner) is a criminal that should go to jail. And under what circumstances such a decision would be made.

[Tammy]

Before I join the group that would force women to carry unwanted babies,...

Follow your reasoning, Carolaa...

The baby is not wanted....but the women can't make up her mind to kill the baby before it is born....and the baby is born....a few months or a few years later, she decides that FOR SURE, the baby is not wanted....so...she decided to kill the child then. Why should the woman be considered anymore of a criminal in society now than a short time before? You yourself admit it was a "baby", even if it is "unwanted" it is still a "baby"...so what makes killing a child a little older so bad? Can't you see where this reasoning takes you?

[carolaa]

if you are voting for Obama...YOU ARE FOR ABORTIONS.

I don't have a litmus test for candidates. Abortion is only one of many important issues, moral and otherwise, to be considered. A vote for Obama does not necessarily mean the voter is for abortion. It may mean that other issues ultimately outweigh the abortion concern. Or it may mean that they believe Obama's policies are more geared toward reducing the number of abortions.

[carolaa]

the women can't make up her mind to kill the baby before it is born....and the baby is born....a few months or a few years later, she decides that FOR SURE, the baby is not wanted....so...she decided to kill the child then. Why should the woman be considered anymore of a criminal in society now than a short time before? You yourself admit it was a "baby", even if it is "unwanted" it is still a "baby"...so what makes killing a child a little older so bad? Can't you see where this reasoning takes you?

So it sounds like your reasoning concludes that a woman who has an abortion is a criminal and should be in jail. Probably along with her doctor and partner.

[Tammy]

I understand... No one wants to believe they are voting for someone who will make the killing of babies easier than it already is...so...you have to find other reasons for voting for the man, because the truth is just too brutal...I understand where you are coming from.

There are (or should be, obviously in many peoples minds there are not) some things that if a candidate stands for/votes for, then as Adventists, we should say, "It doesn't matter what else he stands for, even if everything else he stands for is right...I won't vote for him."

And if there EVER was an issue that we should stand united on as a church, it should be on abortion.

But, as all other churches before us and around us are conforming to the world...so are we...in fact, we are leading the way!

Just as Solomon had great light...so our church has had great light...and just as he left God and followed the heathens around him, even to the point, if I remember right, of offering children as sacrifices...so we too, by voting for a man to be the President of our country who has voted many times in favor of abortion (baby killing) on demand...we, like Solomon, have gone into great darkness....

[carolaa]

There are (or should be, obviously in many peoples minds there are not) some things that if a candidate stands for/votes for, then as Adventists, we should say, "It doesn't matter what else he stands for, even if everything else he stands for is right...I won't vote for him."

That's where we disagree. That would be a litmus test.

Likewise, if a candidate does stand for that one thing we might value above all else, and yet is totally incompetent in every other way, it would be ludicrous to vote for him over a more competent candidate who may not share the same view on that one issue.

[Tammy]

Originally Posted By: Tammy

the women can't make up her mind to kill the baby before it is born....and the baby is born....a few months or a few years later, she decides that FOR SURE, the baby is not wanted....so...she decided to kill the child then. Why should the woman be considered anymore of a criminal in society now than a short time before? You yourself admit it was a "baby", even if it is "unwanted" it is still a "baby"...so what makes killing a child a little older so bad? Can't you see where this reasoning takes you?

So it sounds like your reasoning concludes that a woman who has an abortion is a criminal and should be in jail. Probably along with her doctor and partner.

Of course! Killing is a crime! (Other than for the 1.5% of abortions that are performed for life/death reasons for the mother/baby)...Killing is a crime... You believe it is a crime after the baby is born, but you won't admit it is a crime before the baby is born, when NOTHING has changed....that baby is the same baby 2 seconds before it is born as it is 2 seconds after it born. And yes, anyone who is a part of the crime, should suffer with the person who committed the crime...in fact, I think that the Dr. should be the most responsible...he signed that he would PROTECT life, and instead, he is SNUFFING OUT or STRANGLING or BUTCHERING life! And many women suffer abortions because of the their selfish husbands or boyfriends....yes...they are criminals, too...many times they are the main criminal.

[carolaa]

My personal feeling is that neither candidate is for abortion. They just have different ways of addressing it.

[BobRyan]

The key is their party platform and policy -- if their administration is promoting infant death policies and promoting gay rights -- that is the "moral issue" that Christians need to deal with when voting FOR whoever it is -- because in so doing - they "become sharers" in that work -- as we have been told.

Moral issues are of such a magnitude that they were sufficient for Ellen White in her day to urge for "voting on Sabbath" if need be as we saw here -

http://www.adventistforum.com/forum/ubbt...html#Post190568

And here

http://www.adventistforum.com/forum/ubbt...html#Post190573

There is a good article in the Review discussing "How would Ellen White vote"

http://www.adventistreview.org/issue.php?issue=2008-1525&page=8

in Christ,

Bob

[carolaa]

that baby is the same baby 2 seconds before it is born as it is 2 seconds after it born.

Yes, and I have already said I would favor some restrictions on abortion. I am not in favor of late term abortion except to save the life of the mother.

[Tammy]

Originally Posted By: Tammy

There are (or should be, obviously in many peoples minds there are not) some things that if a candidate stands for/votes for, then as Adventists, we should say, "It doesn't matter what else he stands for, even if everything else he stands for is right...I won't vote for him."

That's where we disagree. That would be a litmus test.

Likewise, if a candidate does stand for that one thing we might value above all else, and yet is totally incompetent in every other way, it would be ludicrous to vote for him over a more competent candidate who may not share the same view on that one issue.

No...the converse is not true. If a person is right on one issue, and wrong on others....you don't need to vote for him....We are not required to vote for anyone...but we are required to NOT vote for someone who stands for certain issues - LIFE being the most important....the lives of the innocent who have no voice for themselves...

[Tammy]

Originally Posted By: Tammy

that baby is the same baby 2 seconds before it is born as it is 2 seconds after it born.

Yes, and I have already said I would favor some restrictions on abortion. I am not in favor of late term abortion except to save the life of the mother.

What makes a late term different than an earlier term? The baby is still a baby...

[BobRyan]

It is interesting that the STATE argues that it is "murder" if the Baby is "located in the wrong place" and when the STATE has the moral clarity to "figure out it is murder" you would think that Bible believing Christians would have an even better clue.

And I am not referring to a debate over a zygote -- that is not the great issue in America today.

in Christ,

Bob

[carolaa]

Originally Posted By: carolaa

Yes' date=' and I have already said I would favor some restrictions on abortion. I am not in favor of late term abortion except to save the life of the mother. [/quote']

What makes a late term different than an earlier term? The baby is still a baby...

I think viability makes a difference.

[carolaa]

It is interesting that the STATE argues that it is "murder" if the Baby is "located in the wrong place" and when the STATE has the moral clarity to "figure out it is murder" you would think that Bible believing Christians would have an even better clue.

And I am not referring to a debate over a zygote -- that is not the great issue in America today.

I really don't think most people have an argument about whether abortion is taking a life or not. The argument has to do with a person's right over their own body.

[Tammy]

I think viability makes a difference.

Well, then I guess you would probably agree with many liberals who are for euthanasia? If a baby is too young to live outside of the womb, without the support of its mothers organs, surely an old person who is dependent on an oxygen machine or some other life support system isn't worth anything either....

What an age we live in! We can take the life of the young....as long as they are too young to live on their own....and we can take the life of the old, if they can't live on their own...perhaps when you get old someday, you might think differently...but in the meantime, how many babies will die, with your consent...because you voted for a man to be the President of the United States who will not protect them.????

[Tammy]

Originally Posted By: BobRyan

It is interesting that the STATE argues that it is "murder" if the Baby is "located in the wrong place" and when the STATE has the moral clarity to "figure out it is murder" you would think that Bible believing Christians would have an even better clue.

And I am not referring to a debate over a zygote -- that is not the great issue in America today.

I really don't think most people have an argument about whether abortion is taking a life or not. The argument has to do with a person's right over their own body.

[Tammy]

Apparently these texts mean nothing to you.....

Quote:

If someone says, "I love God," but hates a Christian brother or sister, that person is a liar; for if we don't love people we can see, how can we love God, whom we cannot see?" 1 John 4:2.

Quote:

"Anyone who takes another person's life must be put to death." Leviticus 24:17.

Quote:

"Now suppose two men are fighting, and in the process they accidentally strike a pregnant woman so she gives birth prematurely. If no further injury results, the man who struck the woman must pay the amount of compensation the woman's husband demands and the judges approve. But if there is further injury, the punishment must match the injury: a life for a life..." Exodus 21:22,23.