Nic Samojluk Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 EmptyCross wrote: “That said I don't think you should use them to try to effect change in the process of law making.” You must be kidding! Are you trying to make me believe that those who believe in God should emasculate themselves and refrain from exercising their civic duties? Our laws are based on moral principles, and these moral principles have one basic source: our Creator who knows better what is best for our happiness and welfare. “You say we have no right to play God, I ask which God you are referring to.” Which God? There are only two Gods, the one who created us and our universe, and “the god of this world,” who Jesus identified with the Devil, the one who has been “a murderer from the beginning.” “I say you have no right to push the beliefs you have about your God on anyone else.” Yes, I do. Jesus ordered his followers to preach his Gospel of salvation to the entire world. His return to this earth is contingent on us fulfilling this sacred duty. “I am all for you living your LIFE as you see fit, and letting others live their LIFE as they see fit.” Yes, we have been granted the freedom to live our lives the way we want; nevertheless, there is a day of reckoning in which we will reap the fruits of our actions, be they good or bad. “All within reason of course.” Exactly! This is why it is wrong to deprive certain groups of human beings of their inalienable right to life. “Based on your beliefs and the extent that you defend life from the time that a sperm joins an egg, then it seems to me that any life that your God created should be defended with the same vigor.” You are forgetting that human beings were created in God’s image. The potential of a human being should never be compared with the potential of an ant. The life of Beethoven, for example, has blessed humanity beyond expectation. Had he been aborted, we would be much poorer. The same could be said about Edison, Lincoln, Einstein, and Jesus Christ. We will never know how many future benefactors have been destroyed within the walls of abortionists. “As such, when looking at things that effect all of us, we need to set aside our personal spiritual beliefs and then move forward based on what is best for everyone.” The abortion of Shakespeare, Mozart, Milton, Reagan, and many other great men of history would have affected the lives of millions. We don’t know what is best for everyone if we disregard the principles set by a wise creator who said: “You shall not murder.”
Nic Samojluk Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 EmptyCross wrote: “Let me rephrase. I think the government should regulate it. As a matter of fact - as I have stated before in this very thread, I would be all for the government tightening those regulations.” Yes! I agree. “That said IMO there are very viable times for abortion, and I also support the use of the morning after pill.” What you are in fact saying is: “There are viable times for killing certain groups of human beings.” What you are doing is trying to improve on what the Lord commanded. This is where you are trying to outsmart the Creator. You would have aborted Beethoven, and I would not. You would have aborted Jesus Christ, and I wouldn’t. You would have aborted Nick Vujijic, and I wouldn’t. For two thousand years physician tried to live according to the Hippocratic Oath, which forbade abortion and doing harm to their patients. Now, physicians think that they are smart enough to know who should live and whose life should be destroyed.
Nic Samojluk Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 doug yowell wrote: “Then you are both pro-life AND for the death penalty!And let's be honest in this thread, there are many pro-lifers who are also adamantly opposed to the death penalty including many Catholics.” I stand by what I said: “I am opposed to the death penalty, unless the evidence against the accused is so overwhelming that no amount of DNA would be able to prove their innocence.” You are also pro-life with an exception: when the life of the pregnant woman is in serious jeopardy and the chance of her dying is beyond doubt. If you allow for one exception in the case of abortion, I should be granted to make one exception in the case of the death penalty. Do you now claim to be 100 percent pro-life?
Nic Samojluk Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 EmptyCross wrote: “In our current state, as a whole, I do see us as a plague and a parasite indeed. I challenge you to show me any different - as a whole. It does not need to be that way, but as long as we continue to put ourselves on a pedestal that’s the way it will be.” Correct! This is why Jesus predicted that this evil world will be destroyed at his Second Coming. History will be repeated. What God did to the pre-Flood generation he will do to the present one. Nevertheless, there will be a huge difference between the first experiment with humanity and the second one. When the Lord destroyed humanity with a Flood, only eight human beings were saved. This time there will be millions, according to the book of Revelation.
Nic Samojluk Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 bonnie wrote: “How far are we from this?? http://liveaction.org/blog/outrageous-ethicists-argue-for-acceptance-of-after-birth-abortions/ According to two Australian ethicists, the baby in that photo should be killed if the parents so wish it, in what they call “after-birth abortion”. It’s not infanticide or murder to them. No, it’s just another form of abortion, because newborns aren’t really people yet. And while it sounds crazy and horrific, this unfortunately isn’t something I’m making up.” We should not marvel at what these non-Adventist ethicists are saying. We have our own representatives who have argued in similar ways. Our own “Guidelines on Abortion” were greatly influenced by men like John Stevens Sr. who even today believes that babies do not have any right to life until they take the first breath. I have had the privilege of investigating this issue and it became the basis of my doctoral dissertation. Arguments like these were the basis for our Adventist Church pro-choice position on abortion and it opened the door for elective abortions to be offered in many of our Adventist hospitals. Thousands of innocent unborn babies were sacrificed on the altar of convenience in some of our medical institutions. If you have any doubt, read the result of my research. Here is the link: http://lulu.com. All you have to do is to type my name—Nic Samojluk-- in the blank search space.
Members rudywoofs (Pam) Posted February 29, 2012 Members Posted February 29, 2012 Nic climbs up on his soap box.... yep the best thing to do... Pam Meddle Not In the Affairs of Dragons; for You Are Crunchy and Taste Good with Ketchup. If we all sang the same note in the choir, there'd never be any harmony. Funny, isn't it, how we accept Grace for ourselves and demand justice for others?
M. T. Cross Posted March 1, 2012 Posted March 1, 2012 EmptyCross wrote: “That said I don't think you should use them to try to effect change in the process of law making.” You must be kidding! Are you trying to make me believe that those who believe in God should emasculate themselves and refrain from exercising their civic duties? Our laws are based on moral principles, and these moral principles have one basic source: our Creator who knows better what is best for our happiness and welfare.
M. T. Cross Posted March 1, 2012 Posted March 1, 2012 Originally Posted By: doug yowell Who do you consider Jesus' equal? He claimed that no one else had a solution for the problems you've described.He also claimed that everything He ever did was without fault and that in fact He was God. Obviously you disagree but why? In fact, He's the only human I consider 100% pro-life. Of course he claimed that! Does not mean that it is entirely true though! Listen, Doug I am not trying to change your belief system, I think that if you have found what you need then by all means stick to it. Its just not mine. As I have said before on these forums, I think Jesus is a piece of the puzzle. I think he was a great teacher and he may have been deity. I also think that Buddha had a part of the puzzle, I think the teachings and lessons of the Norse/Germanic Gods have part of the puzzle, as do the Celtic, the Greek etc. I think if we study it all very closely we will find the truth. Often we feel closer to the teachings of one group than the other. I think that the Divine understands the diversity of the human species and has created many different paths up the same mountain. We also tend to corrupt all these teachings. But if we dig deep enough we find truth. Thats my belief. I don't ask you to agree with it. I just ask that you respect my right to it.
CoAspen Posted March 1, 2012 Posted March 1, 2012 Quote: “I say you have no right to push the beliefs you have about your God on anyone else.” Yes, I do. Jesus ordered his followers to preach his Gospel of salvation to the entire world. His return to this earth is contingent on us fulfilling this sacred duty. The answer above to your statement shows the person is very confused. He is mixing and matching Bible texts to support his beliefs. It is not biblical to say a person has the right to push their beliefs on to another person, ie free will, free choice etc, are taught by the Bible. Neither is Christs 2nd coming contingent on humans actions in spreading the gospel to the whole world, that would be a prideful belief. We are told to take the gospel to the world, but not told when He comes, ie, thief in the nite, etc. The words used by the person are fanatical.
Neil D Posted March 1, 2012 Posted March 1, 2012 Originally Posted By: doug yowell Who do you consider Jesus' equal? He claimed that no one else had a solution for the problems you've described.He also claimed that everything He ever did was without fault and that in fact He was God. Obviously you disagree but why? In fact, He's the only human I consider 100% pro-life. Of course he claimed that! Does not mean that it is entirely true though! Listen, Doug I am not trying to change your belief system, I think that if you have found what you need then by all means stick to it. Its just not mine. As I have said before on these forums, I think Jesus is a piece of the puzzle. I think he was a great teacher and he may have been deity. I also think that Buddha had a part of the puzzle, I think the teachings and lessons of the Norse/Germanic Gods have part of the puzzle, as do the Celtic, the Greek etc. I think if we study it all very closely we will find the truth. Often we feel closer to the teachings of one group than the other. I think that the Divine understands the diversity of the human species and has created many different paths up the same mountain. We also tend to corrupt all these teachings. But if we dig deep enough we find truth. Thats my belief. I don't ask you to agree with it. I just ask that you respect my right to it. Hmmmm.....So, you don't take Christ at His word then, do you EC? How do you feel, being among a bunch of people who hold God to His word, saying that Jesus is either on the same level as a man who says that he's a egg or He is as He claims, The One person of the Godhead who became a human being and declares Himself THE God of heaven...? You realize that the more that we take Him at His word, the more that your belief system will have to shrink...until you have to either believe that Jesus says that He is who He says who he is or you will leave here....because we will remind you of your error.... That will be what it will be... Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve. George Bernard Shaw
Moderators Bravus Posted March 1, 2012 Author Moderators Posted March 1, 2012 Nope. Everyone is welcome here. Even the spiritually arrogant and myopic. (and I'm not talking about EmptyCross) Truth is important
BobRyan Posted March 1, 2012 Posted March 1, 2012 Everyone is welcome here - even those who choose to kill the pre-born babies or at least support those who do so. The Bible declares "A life for a life" in the case of a child killed in the womb. Ex 21:22-23 Some have asked whether the messages God gave to Ellen White are consistent with the Bible - when they test her writings. Well let's see Quote: Women who possess principle, and who are well instructed, will not depart from simplicity of diet at this time of all others. They will consider that another life is dependent upon them and will be careful in all their habits and especially in diet. [11] AH 280 Every drop of strong drink taken [by a mother] to gratify appetite endangers the physical, mental and moral health of her child, and is a direct sin against the Creator. [12] ]White. Ministry of Healing, 373. The effect of prenatal influence is by many parents looked upon as a matter of little moment; but heaven does not so regard it. . . .Two lives are depending upon her, and her wishes should be tenderly regarded. . . . By the command of God Himself, she is placed under the most solemn obligation to exercise self-control. [13] ]White. Ministry of Healing, 372-373. If the father would become acquainted with physical law, he might better understand his obligations and responsibilities. He would see that he had been guilty of almost murdering his children, by suffering so many burdens to come upon the mother, compelling her to labor beyond her strength before their birth, in order to obtain means to leave for them. [14] 2SM 429-430 I don't ask whether it is arrogant to believe God - I just choose to believe Him. I call this "affirming choice" and affirming the value of human life. In the 1800's Adventists did this by opposing slavery. Today we do it by opposing abortion. (Oddly enough - there is one unique American political party that consistently opposed the Adventist position on those two issues.) in Christ, Bob John 8:32 - The Truth will make you free“The righteousness of Christ will not cover one cherished sin." COL 316.
M. T. Cross Posted March 1, 2012 Posted March 1, 2012 Hmmmm.....So, you don't take Christ at His word then, do you EC? How do you feel, being among a bunch of people who hold God to His word, saying that Jesus is either on the same level as a man who says that he's a egg or He is as He claims, The One person of the Godhead who became a human being and declares Himself THE God of heaven...? You realize that the more that we take Him at His word, the more that your belief system will have to shrink...until you have to either believe that Jesus says that He is who He says who he is or you will leave here....because we will remind you of your error.... That will be what it will be... I don't take anything written and recorded by mankind at its word. Ya know......... it took 18 years for SDA's to get rid of me the first time I involved myself with them so I imagine I could be here for a while........... sorry
Nic Samojluk Posted March 1, 2012 Posted March 1, 2012 Nic climbs up on his soap box.... If you set up the soap box, I will climb on it! Why should I waste precious time--of which I have very little left--on non-essentials?
Nic Samojluk Posted March 1, 2012 Posted March 1, 2012 EmptyCross wrote: “Wow, Nic you do have a talent for twisting peoples words don't you!!! I never once said you should refrain from your civic duties. I am just saying that unless you live in a country that has its law based on one religion, effectively banning all other belief systems, then your religious convictions should be left out of the law making process.” It looks like I do not have a monopoly on twisting what other people are saying. You just twisted what I said beyond recognition. I did not suggest that we have the right to impose our religion on others. What I have been saying is that as members of our community, we do have the right and duty to exercise our civic duties. It is true that different religions have divergent views about morality; nevertheless, most human beings do agree that punishing the innocent is morally unacceptable. This represents a moral principle which is the basic building block of society wherever you go, regardless of ethnicity or religion. Since the unborn is a member of humanity and has committed no crime, then we should conclude that imposing the death penalty on someone waiting to be born is morally wrong. This basic tenet was recognized for two millennia until the 1960’s when the sexual revolution took place and forced society to solve the problem by discarding the Hippocratic Oath and relegated it to the thrash bin of history. “If not, and everyone gets to use their religious beliefs in the process of law making then we would have mayhem and chaos.” Chaos is what we have today where the guilty rapist is allowed to live while society condemns to death one of the innocent victims: the unborn. “All the Christian religions believe various things, the Muslims believe something different” Yes, the Moslem extremists believe that they have the right to kill all infidels, and for them anybody who rejects the Moslem religion is an infidel. They believe that religious freedom is anathema and anybody wishing to leave the Moslem religion should be killed. We all have the right and duty to exercise our civic duty to outlaw such twisted views from our society. All human beings have an inalienable right to life and happiness regardless of their ethnicity and religion. Do you deny this? “Should they all get to use their religious views to influence law making?” There is an overlap between religious and moral principles. Our U.S. Constitution states that we all have been endowed by the Creator with the right to life and he search of happiness. This means that the government has a duty to protect the right to life of every human being within its jurisdiction. When the U.S. Supreme Court legalized the killing of innocent members of the human race, the U.S. Congress should have said: “Over our death bodies.” Congress should have recognized the personhood of all human beings, including the unborn. Had Congress done its moral and legal duty, abortion would not have raised its ugly and murderous head. Creating new laws is not the duty of the Supreme Court. Said duty belongs to Congress. We have a pusillanimous Congress and a Supreme Court which has usurped the power which belongs to Congress. Judges and Justices are ruling from the bench. This practice must be stopped, and we have the duty to elect representatives willing to effect such a change.
Nic Samojluk Posted March 1, 2012 Posted March 1, 2012 EmptyCross wrote: “Is that a fact or just an opinion?” It is my opinion and the opinion of all those who did write the most influential book ever printed: the Bible. If you do not recognize the Bible and Jesus Christ as moral authorities, then we are wasting our precious time in discussing these matters. We live in a country whose Constitution recognizes that our laws are derived from the Creator who has endowed every member of the human race with the right to life and happiness. “Should your religious conviction about your God supersede others about their Gods?” Our U.S. Constitution recognizes only one moral authority and only one Creator. All others are either non-existent or derive their authority from mere human sources. “So what if I show up on your doorstep with a copy of the Havamal? Do I have that right? Do all the other religions have that same right?” In the U.S. nobody is prevented from belonging to the religion of their choice; nevertheless, such freedom should not deprive others from the same right. The moment one individuals harms the rights of others, he needs to be stopped and punished. “Again - those are your beliefs. I certainly believe in your right to have them. I just don't think you have the right to tell me or anyone else how to conduct our lives based on your beliefs.” Yes, provided you do not impose on the rights of others. The moment your religion grants you the power to harm other members of the human race, you go to jail. “This is a recording....... it all depends on when you say HUMAN life begins.” Science recognizes that human life—your life and mine—starts when the human sperm fertilizes a human ovum. There is no room for equivocation here. It was recognizes this way for two thousand years, and even today biology books do teach this. “I don't believe we were created in Gods image per say. Indeed we have been greatly blessed by the lives of those people. But do we know how important that ant we just stepped on was to his community?” Our U.S. Constitution says nothing about the right of ants to life! Ants do not have an inalienable right to life and the pursuit of happiness! “This is the same creator that ordered the death of many, many lives right?” Right! He is God, while I am not. I have no right to question his wisdom. We are not looking at the finished product. On the day of reckoning every human being will worship God and admit that his ways were based on justice and love. "Woot - we agree on one thing" We probably agree on other beliefs. I believe that you probably agree with me that God is smarter and wiser than puny human beings; that society should punish the guilty instead of the victims of crime; that we do have the right and duty of exercising our civic duty by voting for the right candidates for office. Should I go on? “Again, I don't share your religious views so I am not trying to outsmart anyone. I am living my life by a code that I believe in.” You have the right to disagree with the U.S. Constitution, but you do not have the right to violate it. Said Constitution declares that all human beings do have the right to life. “You say I would have aborted these people. Oddly enough Nic, you are arguing with someone that has 4 children, 3 of which are special needs. We could have had a test done early in the pregnancy to find out if they would have any special needs, which would have given us the option of aborting. We, as a couple, chose not to have those tests done because it did not matter to us. See we lost 3 babies, two to miscarriages and one to a tubal pregnancy. I know the pain and grief of those little lives lost. I treasure my children beyond any gift I have in a way that I can not put into words.” Congratulations! See, we do agree on more things than a single belief. “That said, I don't think that a woman that is pregnant due to rape, one that did not know she is pregnant and has consumed drugs and/or alcohol, a woman who's life will be lost due to the pregnancy should be forced to carry the baby to term.” I can’t believe this! We do agree on this one as well! Praise the Lord! I have been saying this from day one. The duty of physicians is to save human lives; which means that if a doctor can save only one life, he is still pro-life. If doctors agree that the pregnancy will result in the death of the woman and her baby, he should be commended for saving at least one life. Nevertheless, if the life of the woman is not in serious jeopardy, then adoption is a better alternative than abortion. If society lets the rapist live, common sense dictates that the unborn baby which is one of the innocent victims should be allowed to live as well. Punishing the innocent baby is a miscarriage of justice. “I think that someone that had a condom break or something similiar should be entitled to the morning after pill. I believe these things because of how precious I think life is. Because I think every person should have a fighting chance.” If the morning pill prevents the creation of a human being; if it prevents fertilization, then we are in agreement! “Wow, Nic, just the fact that you can call it an "experiment with humanity" and be ok with the millions of lives that will be lost if you happen to be right really does not do a lot to hold up your "pro life" stance.” Only rebels will be destroyed. God offers forgiveness and eternal life to everybody willing to live according to the principles of heaven. Granting eternal life to murderers would make life unsafe for everybody. Whether there is only one rebel destroyed or millions is irrelevant. The universe must be made safe for those who choose eternal life. Eternal life where evil and murder prevails makes no sense.
Nic Samojluk Posted March 1, 2012 Posted March 1, 2012 CoAspen wrote: “The answer above to your statement shows the person is very confused. He is mixing and matching Bible texts to support his beliefs.” The choice of the “pushing beliefs” was not my choice of words, but rather his. I would have preferred the “right to preach the Gospel of forgiveness and salvation” expression. “It is not biblical to say a person has the right to push their beliefs on to another person, ie free will, free choice etc, are taught by the Bible.” I agree! Nevertheless, we are talking about the eternal destiny of human beings. If a man is threatening to jump from bridge to his death, does the police have the right to use force to save his life? Would such action be equivalent to pushing one’s beliefs on the one who is determined to end his life? If your son or daughter were on the verge of swallowing enough pills to commit suicide, do you have the right to intervene? Do you say, my son is entitled to his beliefs? As you can see, this issue can be viewed form different angles, and the right answer is not as easy as we may believe. “Neither is Christs 2nd coming contingent on humans actions in spreading the gospel to the whole world, that would be a prideful belief.” You need to read what Jesus stated about his Second Coming in Mathew 24:14. He stated that “This Gospel shall be preached in the whole world … and then the end will come.” “The words used by the person are fanatical.” Where is the fanaticism in what I am saying?
Nic Samojluk Posted March 1, 2012 Posted March 1, 2012 Everyone is welcome here - even those who choose to kill the pre-born babies or at least support those who do so. The Bible declares "A life for a life" in the case of a child killed in the womb. Ex 21:22-23 Some have asked whether the messages God gave to Ellen White are consistent with the Bible - when they test her writings. Well let's see Quote: Women who possess principle, and who are well instructed, will not depart from simplicity of diet at this time of all others. They will consider that another life is dependent upon them and will be careful in all their habits and especially in diet. [11] AH 280 Every drop of strong drink taken [by a mother] to gratify appetite endangers the physical, mental and moral health of her child, and is a direct sin against the Creator. [12] ]White. Ministry of Healing, 373. The effect of prenatal influence is by many parents looked upon as a matter of little moment; but heaven does not so regard it. . . .Two lives are depending upon her, and her wishes should be tenderly regarded. . . . By the command of God Himself, she is placed under the most solemn obligation to exercise self-control. [13] ]White. Ministry of Healing, 372-373. If the father would become acquainted with physical law, he might better understand his obligations and responsibilities. He would see that he had been guilty of almost murdering his children, by suffering so many burdens to come upon the mother, compelling her to labor beyond her strength before their birth, in order to obtain means to leave for them. [14] 2SM 429-430 I don't ask whether it is arrogant to believe God - I just choose to believe Him. I call this "affirming choice" and affirming the value of human life. In the 1800's Adventists did this by opposing slavery. Today we do it by opposing abortion. (Oddly enough - there is one unique American political party that consistently opposed the Adventist position on those two issues.) in Christ, Bob Amen, brother! May the Lord bless you for your courage to stand for truth a a time when infidelity is rampant!
doug yowell Posted March 1, 2012 Posted March 1, 2012 I stand by what I said: “I am opposed to the death penalty, unless the evidence against the accused is so overwhelming that no amount of DNA would be able to prove their innocence.” You are also pro-life with an exception: when the life of the pregnant woman is in serious jeopardy and the chance of her dying is beyond doubt. If you allow for one exception in the case of abortion, I should be granted to make one exception in the case of the death penalty. Do you now claim to be 100 percent pro-life? Yep.
doug yowell Posted March 1, 2012 Posted March 1, 2012 Listen, Doug I am not trying to change your belief system, I think that if you have found what you need then by all means stick to it. Its just not mine. I don't ask you to agree with it. I just ask that you respect my right to it. I respect your right to believe whatever you wish I don't respect your right to believe it without my voicing God's objections to it.My belief system demands that nothing but A Divine Creator and Sustainer can give you any objective worth in this life. Consistency demands that it is that life which I must concern myself with.
doug yowell Posted March 1, 2012 Posted March 1, 2012 Nope. Everyone is welcome here. Even the spiritually arrogant and myopic. (and I'm not talking about EmptyCross) Did you have anyone in particular in mind?
doug yowell Posted March 1, 2012 Posted March 1, 2012 Ya know......... it took 18 years for SDA's to get rid of me the first time I involved myself with them so I imagine I could be here for a while........... sorry Could you join up with the 7th Day Baptists or something while we're waiting?
doug yowell Posted March 1, 2012 Posted March 1, 2012 But do we know how important that ant we just stepped on was to his community? How can we possibly know that unless the ant community hires Gloria Allred to sue for a constitutional violation?
doug yowell Posted March 1, 2012 Posted March 1, 2012 Nope. Everyone is welcome here. Given the response to Nic's input, I wouldn't think the word "welcome" was the operative term.
Recommended Posts