I agree with you, Angel!

OK, you were able to burp out a comment, now can you show show me one example where my opinion/facts are wrong or one example of how/where you (your opinion) is right?

Everything I stated is indisputable. It is not an opinion.

kkflash, Bam Bam doesn’t need to buy votes, thats what were lead to believe__TPTB bought his first for year stint in the White House, I’d be willing to wager a bet, if they want Bam Bam back in there, they’ll buy it for another four years.

__I’ve only been studying American History for about 3 years, but I’ll guran-dam-tee-ya things are not what they seem in America!!!

I got this originally from TIME on this forum “The Season for Treason” youtube__ those vids will tell what its all about in a very short period of time, throw away what you think you know!

Geez, Rob tell us again about how the LEFT saved the world??__LMAO!

Tell us, comrade ‘r,’ when you CHOSE to follow Hitler to become another racially “pure” National Socialist [aka NAZI], what besides your ass did you sell? Tell us, BABY KILLER, HOW can you claim to have a CONSCIENCE?
Are old people next on your COMPASSIONATE, MEAN-SPIRITED list? You’re a real piece of work, comrade. If you live long enough, you might realize that even the Mafia doesn’t kill babies.
YOU, on the other hand, HAVE “STANDARDS.” How many ways can you define standards? How many murdered babies a day does it take to make BABY KILLERS like you HAPPY?

Robert — More clinic bombings and doctor killings? By whom?

In Kansas where physical threats have been made against Dr Tillers replacement Where this new Doctor was told to check under her Mini-Cooper everyday because ” you will get what Teller did”.

I have a better idea Robert. We close-down all the clinics, we charge all abortion practitioners with having committed mass-murder, and we throw them in the slammer for life, or, death by lethal injection! How’s that?

Dear Bob,

FORNICATE

Late Latin fornicatus, past participle of fornicare: to have intercourse with prostitutes, from Latin fornic-, fornix arch, vault, brothel
First Known Use: 1552 AD (Fornication: 1303 AD)

Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fornicate
There is an excellent etymology at http://goldenrule.name/Fornication_ENGLISH/

The translation and definitions you used are quite modern. But I understand the sentiment expressed, today casual sex can kill and certainly cause permanent harm. But the modern definition of fornication when applied to the Bible follows R.C. Sproul’s concept of legalism.

I think the forum following your column demonstrates how strongly people feel about these ideas and also a great diversity of thought as well. We do need to find our moral compass. And sexual proclivities and mores stir great emotional responses whereas deceit and idolatry do not. Though the later is the greater danger. However, that is another discussion.

Best Wishes,
William

Bob,

What an interesting point about stealing from one person to give to another by government- by which you might have meant government mandated health insurance. Most non-governmental mandated health insurance currently covers pregnancy and certain contraceptives. Are you advocating that pregnancy no longer be covered under health insurance programs?

More interestingly, your argument would suggest that insurance (since this is how the money would be stolen from you and given to a woman to prevent pregnancy) is not about spreading risk amongst the insured and managing that risk. It would seem from the insurance company’s perspective that contraception would be one tool of managing pregnancy risk (which the AMA designates as having symptoms and treatments). Reducing pregnancy risk would reduce the cost of insurance, as pregnancy is the more expensive and poses the greater short and long term health risk to the woman. What other health coverages and forms of insurance coverages do you consider stealing and giving to someone else rather than mitigating risk and spreading risk.

Thank you,

William

Bob Livingston__That’s why I like it here You get involved too!

Bob Livingston: Sorry I stirred up a hornet’s nest concerning “irregardless.” You are correct with your comment. It is nonstandard–and I edit many many manuscripts from educated authors that use “irregardless” quite frequently. Thank you for your explanation.

Goodness gracious, Claire. As far as i am concerned, it’s a non-issue. Your apology was not necessary, certainly not from you; as you bring a good measure of grace, beauty, and character to this site. Rather than solicit an apology from you, we should all thank you for presence, and your wonderful wisdom!

“Hear, Hear”, Warrior!

I’ve got the guns and ammo, you got the post and blindfold?

Dittos!

Matt there is no one here that cares except you….

Uh Matt, you’re totally wrong:
irregardless |ˌiriˈgärdlis| adjective & adverb
regardless.
usage: Irregardless is widely heard, perhaps arising under the influence of such perfectly correct forms as , but should be avoided by careful users of English. Use regardless to mean ‘without regard or consideration for’ or ‘nevertheless’.
Obviously, you need to look it up before you stick your foot in your mouth – not to bad of an idea, right?

and here as well
Origin:
1910–15; ir-2 (probably after irrespective ) + regardless
Can be confused:  irregardless, regardless (see usage note at the current entry ).
Usage note
Irregardless is considered nonstandard because of the two negative elements ir- and -less. It was probably formed on the analogy of such words as irrespective, irrelevant, and irreparable. Those who use it, including on occasion educated speakers, may do so from a desire to add emphasis.

Dear Matt,

See my response to karlseidel below. It partly pertains to you.

Best wishes,
Bob

Matt,
It is rather obvious that you are a true “fly speckers”. Now go look that one up.

Matt — Wrong!!! My copy of Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary d\says that it neans the same as regardless!!!

Your argument is phony. Birth Control has been available (in one form or another) since before I was born, and I’m 71 years old! No one has EVER tried to deny birth control to anyone who wants it, and that includes RIGHT NOW, TODAY!

This is all about “Freedom of Association” and the right of anyone who OBJECTS to “ABORTION,” not to be forced to participate. You need to read and TRY to understand what the new HHS RULE actually says, before you comment on it.

This issue is not and never was about “Birth Control.” It’s about freedom of association and RELIGIOUS FREEDOM with regard to the Catholic Church and it’s associated organizations. Read the 1st Amendment. The federal government is SPECIFICALLY denied any authority at all where they’re concerned…

From G: “This is all about “Freedom of Association”

No it isn’t. It’s about the catholic church imposing its beliefs upon those not of their flock. Members of the church can go off and not take birth control or have no abortions as much as they want, but for non-members they have NO control.

I don’t like the idea of the church imposing control on folks outside the flock. If they hire someone not of the flock they should be held responsible so that person gets the same benefits as is mandated for any other employer.

Rob

First, you are right – it’s a smokescreen. But let’s discuss the Wag the Dog issues that are not being discussed. Wall Street is in a securitization nightmare with over $600 Trillion (with a capital “T”) in debt being propped up with taxpayer money. While birth control is a dicey issue… And the freedom to speak before Congress derailed… It is not nearly as important as saving 75 million+ people from financial disaster and complete ruin. Wall Street’s securitization fiasco is one big Madoff X 10,000. Nobody is speaking to the primary financial disaster or doing the math. It isn’t going away folks. The big collapse is still out there and what Obama is or isn’t doing is not stabilizing it and nobody else is picking up the big stick and talking directly to America. See http://www.deadlyclear.com

Who’s imposing their beliefs upon whom? How can you accuse a church of “imposing control on folks outside the flock” but you’re OK with government imposing control over the benefits an organization must provide to its members or its employees? Why is it OK in your eyes for government to mandate the purchase of contraceptives by businesses for its employees? What gives government the authority to require health insurance to be purchased by anyone? You’re as hypocritical as Obama in saying it’s acceptable for government to forcibly take my money and spend it on something that’s against my religious principles, while simultaneously accusing the victims of trying to control the perpetrators. It’s just liberal double-speak.

Robert:

I beg to differ with you. It is about freedom of association and free will. If an employer feels that certain “benefits” are morally repugnant, it should have the right to not offer them. And, potential employees, for whom those benefits are important can choose to go work somewhere else. The employer is not imposing its will or morality on the employee. The employee is free to use contraception and even to have an abortion. The employer is simply choosing not to pay for it. This happens in all sorts of other benefits as well. I’ve worked for companies that chose to offer dental plans and for others that did not. Similarly, life insurance, eldercare insurance, optical insurance, cancer coverage and a host of “cafeteria” benefits are competitively offered by some employers and not my others. Some of my previous employers provided me with a computer and a car, should that now become a mandatory level of benefit for every employer in the country?

The point is, that the government does not have the authority to force a person to have or an employer to provide health insurance. It is part of a compensation package that should be competitive in the market. If dental insurance and a company car are important for you, go find an employer that offers them. If contraception and abortions are key benefits for you and your family, go find an employer that offers them or pay for them yourself. Under current law you have the right and access to these services. So, let’s all stop whining about this having something to do with women’s reproductive rights. Nothing in this argument prevents women from using birth control. What the unconstitutional regulation does is illegally force employers to provide funding for services they find morally reprehensible.

This is not about healthcare and its not about women’s rights. It IS about making employer provided insurance so costly, so unattractive and so uncompetitive that employers will eventually stop providing health benefits forcing everyone into a one size fits all socialized health system. Once all the plans are the same and very expensive, everyone will demand a single provider government run system. When your doctor works for Washington instead of for you, good luck in getting the care you need when you need it because he or she will be working for other people with a different agenda than yours.

Deadly clear, Obama is gonna be pretty difficult to stop when most of Congress is playing the same game he is.

Robert Smith says:

It’s about the catholic church imposing its beliefs upon those not of their flock. Members of the church can go off and not take birth control or have no abortions as much as they want, but for non-members they have NO control.

So it is ok for non-flock to pose its beliefs on the flock but not for the flock to impose their beliefs in the non-flock. This is your argument? Such is the blatant hypocrisy of the liberal.

Oh and the non-flock can go work somewhere else. They are not slaves of the flock.

I don’t like the idea of the church imposing control on folks outside the flock. If they hire someone not of the flock they should be held responsible so that person gets the same benefits as is mandated for any other employer.

Thus you repeat your desire to force YOUR beliefs on the church. Nice and liberal of you.
Oh and extra bonus liberal points for forcing your beliefs in any employer.

Contraception is the best choice. We have a serious overpopulation problem. I believe women should make men responsible for the birth control pills. If she is loose pay for yourself. Nixon,the Rockefellers,Gates (the good boys club)etc.believes en Eugenics because of the degeneration of the people. The problem is in the homes of this country .We have to raise our daughters as ladies no tramps in few words with morals and that bad choices have bad consequences.

Bob Smith(BS), It’s not about the Catholic Church forcing their views on non-Catholics. It’s about the government FORCING thier will against the Catholic Church. That violates their 1rst amendment rights. Like it or not. The spin people turned it from we want to trample all over someones 1rst amendment rights, into the Church wants to take away your contraception and the sheeple believed it. (you included)
All the Constitution says is you can’t force someone to go against your religious beliefs and that is what that mandate would do.
It isn’t about contraception, it’s about 1rst amendment rights.

Jim

Catholics are off the hook now so it is no longer a religious issue. This only applied to religious operated public service organization not to those engaged in religious activities. What the Catholics wanted was to not furnish these to employees not of their religion or no religion and they have no right to force their beliefs on them and most religions are ok with that.

Smillee, Again for those not paying attention. It doesn’t matter the belief or the faith of the employee. The employer shouldn’t be mandated to provide something that goes against their doctrine or faith.
Since the Bill of rights is about an individuals rights, An employer of any business, not just a faith based employer should not be forced to provide something that goes against their conscience.
It isn’t about contraception, it’s about 1rst amendment rights. To bad so many here are so eager to throw that away, or unable to see what the real issue is.

The Church isn’t saying that their employees can’t use contarception, just that they aren’t going to provide it. They aren’t taking it away, just not providing it. It will be as availiable as it always was.

Jim

Where is the beef? They will not have to furnish it to their employees. I think your take that individuals applies only to employers and not to the individual themself is nothing more than you spinning to meet what you want it to be and not what it is.

Yes Smilee, I am talking about the individual employer. They are U.S. citizens entitled to the protection of the Bill of Rights also. What don’t you get?

Smilee, if the employer has to pay for it, they are furnishing it to their employees. What gives government the right to tell any employer what benefits must be provided to employees?

There are ways not to have children and it may involve not having sex.Taxpayer paid sex education classes were instituted in schools so you would learn that.

These employers no longer have to pay for it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

NO employer should have to pay for it. The people who voted yes on this Un-Constitutional law only changed some of it because they got caught. They would have been happy to see it all be put into place,
Food for thought, some of them are up for re-election. Should we vote for them to stay?

Say what you mean, comrade k. Babies have no choice in the matter. They were unlucky enough to have a mother who was coached to confuse compassion with murder.
If you can read, there’s a very interesting book out there in the real world called Liberal Fascism. They connect the dots for readers who give a damn about people (adults AND babies).
You’ll get to read about certain racial “icons” who think inferior breeders are breeding too much and superior breeders aren’t having enough babies. YOU have teamed up with some of the sickest people on the face of the earth, comrade k. Hitler would be so PROUD of you.
Please change your ways, or get sterilized. You owe that much to America. Now, go READ and LEARN.

Why are abortion opponents called “PRO LIFE”, while the antonym should be called “PRO DEATH”, not pro choice.

Karolyn, you wanted to say “their CHOICE to” KILL?

If we had half of those 40 million babies, that were aborted, alive and in the work force today, we might not have the problem we have with Social Security going broke.

That’s right, someone will be paying for it. And government has no right to force me to pay for contraception for you. It has nothing to do with religion. It’s about government forcibly taking one citizen’s money and spending it for another citizens’ pleasure. Even you “general welfare” idiots should be able to see the inherent inequity in that.

Why would a woman, that is paying $200,000 for her education at Georgetown, need to be making an issue of paying $3,000 for birth control pills during that same period of time?

Dear God’s Word,

You write: “Moral as in The Bible…then read Exodus 21:22. Death of the fetus is not murder but death of the mother is. Harm to the fetus is not punishable but harm to the mother is.” That is quite a tortured interpretation you have devised.

You write: “Perspective would indicate that a fetus is not a person” Psalm 139:13
For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb. (NASB)

You write: “Nowhere in the Bible is premarital sex a wrong or a sin. Representing one’s self as a virgin was a wrong and a sin. Cheating on your spouse or your betrothed was a wrong and a sin. Renting your body out for sex was a wrong. Still is I would think. Trying to control women because men can’t control themselves is ludicrous. Trying to prevent sex outside of committed relationships is ludicrous too. God’s Word and even The Bible figured that one out.” I suggest you read I Cor. 6:9-10: 9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor [f]effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.
Hebrews 13:4: 4 Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge.
Matt. 15:19-20: For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, [i]fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders. 20 These are the things which defile the man; but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile the man.”

Your entire comment is but mindless argle-bargle.

Best wishes,
Bob

Ok, we won’t call it birth control, we’ll call it contraceptive sacrificing. There’s biblical precedence for sacrificing children, no Christen moral issues. Don’t know about the Koran. Oh, the Christians and Muslims have the same god.

Dear RichE,

You write: “Ok, we won’t call it birth control, we’ll call it contraceptive sacrificing.” I have no idea what you mean.

You write: “There’s biblical precedence for sacrificing children, no Christen moral issues.” Please cite for me book, chapter and verse.

You write: “Oh, the Christians and Muslims have the same god.” Wrong.

Best wishes,
Bob

Hi Bob,
The biblical presidency for killing your children goes something this, “For God loved the physical so much he killed his kid”

Really, the Christians, Muslims, and Jews don’t have the same god. I think you need to double check that one Bob.

Dear Bob’s Word,

“That is quite a tortured interpretation you have devised” regarding death of the fetus is not murder but death of the mother is. The passage is exceptionally clear on the matter. Most folk can follow it and double check with something like Strong’s Concordance to be sure their particular translation has not been corrupted. Your choice of the New American Standard Bible (NASB) is most astute as it avoids the Hebrew words “yeh’-led yaw-tsaw”- the baby fails, the baby miscarries or the baby dies.

“Psalm 139:13 For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb. (NASB)” Just as Adam was formed at the hand of God and did not become a living soul until he breathed…(even in the NASB) Genesis 2:7

You write: “I suggest you read I Cor. 6:9-10: 9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor [f]effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.
Hebrews 13:4: 4 Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge.
Matt. 15:19-20: For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, [i]fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders. 20 These are the things which defile the man; but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile the man.”

Yes…? The Bible provides no condemnation nor frowned upon premarital sex in any of those passages. Fornicators were prostitutes, idolaters worshiped gods like money and power as well as statuary etc. And on the list goes…

Yes…Marriage and betrothals were positive social institutions. Yes! That is all good! All that is still true I would hope. That’s my religious and personal bias and I can stick to it.

“Your entire comment is but mindless argle-bargle.” Isn’t that just how atheists attack believers in a moral universe created at the hand of God and people of faith? With an atheistic elitist like attack- “mindless”. A crass remark Bob, crass… But “argle-bargle,” okay I admit it, made me laugh.

You write many thought provoking and insightful articles. I appreciate your voice and your clarity but sometimes- well sometimes I think you have an agenda not rooted in being insightful or providing clarity.

Provoking certainly has its uses, but personal attacks in no manner generate the necessary dialogue that will result in people understanding what is behind the political stances they take and the possible conclusions that may follow. Personal attacks do nothing to establish the validity or lack of validity of an argument. This form of debasing an argument suggests a certain type of concern…

Other than that, keep up the good work and God Bless,
William

Although I do not have the Book, chapter, and verse handy I believe Soleman said “the spirit enters into the child in the womb”.

People, before to start an argument with GW, at least open the BIBLE and read the passage GW provided. Here you have it:

“If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life” (Exodus 21:22)

A woman “gave birth prematurely, yet no harm follows” which means “no harm follows” to CHILD or mother.
GW, it was not fetus. God’s Word says it “CHILD”. Do not diminish God’s creation “CHILD”. God highly value innocent defenseless life.

“My frame was not hidden from You, when I was being made in secret … Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in Your book were written every one of them, the days, that were formed for me, when as yet there were none of them.” (Ps.139:15-16)

God knows how “the bones grow in the womb of her who is with child…” (Ecclesiastes 11:5)
“The Spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life.” (Job 33:4)

Your “leader” is for infanticide, but not HEAVENLY Father. His 6th commandment is: “You shall not murder.”

WG, please do not spread your stupid ungodly LEFTIST’s propaganda, at least on this Web Site.
“In all your ways acknowledge Him [God], And He shall direct[a] your paths. Do not be wise in your own eyes; Fear the LORD and depart from evil. It will be health to your flesh,[b] And strength[c] to your bones.” (Proverbs 3)

God BLESS America and our troops.

independant thinker,

The passage you are seeking is (NASB, Ecclesiastes 11:5) “Just as you do not know the path of the wind and how bones are formed in the womb of the pregnant woman, so you do not know the activity of God who makes all things.” The book is attributed to Solomon as a sobering realization upon his return to God’s grace. One of my favorites!

RichE, Christians have HEAVENLY Father, Whose 6th commandment is: “You shall not murder”. But muslims’ god is allaha, who is jihadist and in muslim’s book Koran (I hope you heard about the book) allah commands 36 times to kill infidels. Do you know who infidels are? Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, atheists and of course leftists, even if they believe in allah. I guess you are infidel.
RichE, do not forget to pray to allah 5 times a day.

Alondra, I find it hard to believe a, “God is good” based belief would instruct believers to terminate non-believers. A levelheaded interpretation would be, “terminate the ignorance of the non-believer” not “terminate the life of the non-believer”

Alondra,

Perhaps you are leftist? You wish to reform (reform; not meaning reshape) the world into your own image? Certainly the leftists I have had occasion to banter with were that way. Or is that a term you like to invoke because you fear it and hence anything which generates fear for you is treated to the label “leftist?” Personally, leftists do not scare me, they often offer amusing conversations. Well, having thrown that label at me pretty hard- I hope this conversation offers you some amusement.

I liked your passage “The Spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life.” (Job 33:4) Wow! Doesn’t that just say it all “…and the breath of the Almighty gives me life.” Amen. For that is indeed when you became a living soul. I’ve already cited Genesis 2:7.

You wrote: ‘A woman “gave birth prematurely, yet no harm follows” which means “no harm follows” to CHILD or mother.
GW, it was not fetus. God’s Word says it “CHILD”. Do not diminish God’s creation “CHILD”.’

I cited the Hebrew words used and you can choose to ignore them. I choose not to- having written: “the baby dies.” Fetus is a medical term for a baby that is more than a zygote, more than an embryo and less than born. But the real point is that the technology allowing (all but the very latest term premature births) the baby to breathe and thereby survive did not exist in those days. Certainly, though our knowledge and medical skills are phenomenal today, many premature babies who are not late term fail to survive and beyond all doubt died in those days. Seek out translations which are more literal and the harm references the woman, “and she lives” NOT “and she and the baby lives.”

You wrote: “God highly value innocent defenseless life.” By that I presume you mean 24-28 week premature babies which cost millions of dollars to keep alive; some of which require a lifetime of specialized care. Talk about stealing from many people and giving to it all to another! Yet! We do not have this attitude toward children and families in general- only unborn babies and “preemies!” So the bias cannot really be about not trusting pregnant women to make the correct decision regarding the unborn baby.

Your argument really goes something like this (paraphrasing)- “The mother’s sweet innocent defenseless fetus, her very child within her womb, cannot be trusted to her moral decision as she and God determine it. It’s amazing we allow women to raise children at all as they are so untrustworthy and capable of such immoral decisions (exactly who bit the apple first)! And no way am I going to trust God, much less any lesser being, to lead a pregnant woman to the proper moral decision about bringing this particular life into being. It is imperative to force the woman to bear children- as many as the Lord allows- as she is an incubator-nanny of more incubator-nannies and men. Men of course are exempt from this scrutiny and above reproach- they can’t give birth to babies! Besides, everyone knows the Bible says Adam became a living soul and not a word about his incubator-nanny Eve being a living soul. Women just need to stop rebelling against God’s role for them and accept their fate.”

However, the bias is about something else- that much is obvious. That particular argument does not seem to be legitimate, especially coming from someone using a woman’s name. It would be unlikely that most women would choose to treat birthing a child or giving the child back to God as a flippant decision…even amongst the atheists (of course you think we need more godless people in this world?).

The unborn baby is just that “bones formed in the womb of the pregnant woman.” Notice that the Word is not ‘the living soul formed in the womb” There is no need to make the womb dependent baby more than that. Furthermore, this argument was made public in 1999 by Rabbi Shira Stern (you probably have heard of her father). I trust her judgement regarding this matter and initially found her words and The Word (readings from the Bible) on this matter troubling (something along the lines of how would Jesus teach this). So I prayed. But it was not until I understood that a woman is a living moral human being, that my heart opened and love with understanding flowed in (and the following idea exists in Revelations as well):

–A man is a living moral human being.
–Woman came from his side and thereby is his equal in all matters.
–As such, a woman must also be a living moral human being.

There can be no question but that the fetus -unborn baby (as that makes you more comfortable)- is living human DNA and God’s wonder. But it does not have the same personhood that the mother does and by physical necessity brought about by its dependency on the mother, the unborn baby’s rights are abrogated to that of the mother’s psychological and physical health.

You wrote: “please do not spread your stupid ungodly LEFTIST’s propaganda, at least on this Web Site.
“In all your ways acknowledge Him [God], And He shall direct[a] your paths. Do not be wise in your own eyes; Fear the LORD and depart from evil. It will be health to your flesh,[b] And strength[c] to your bones.” (Proverbs 3)”

If only you understood this website is about freedom from tyranny and the search for truth. And though some here do reduce their arguments to name calling and hiding behind label(s), that is really not the message- even though you participated in that obfuscation. The message in these forums is that most of us conservative sorts want a responsive and responsible government which is respectful of our rights. A government which only takes from our earnings or our wealth what is absolutely necessary to protect those freedoms and provide necessary services. Besides, I get the impression you have no idea what a leftist is other than being something you are supposed to fear and loath. However much you fear and loath me, that is hardly sufficient cause for me to turn into a leftist.

If only you had read your last paragraph and understood it not only applies to me; the Word also applies to you. So might you pray and find peace in God’s Word. Or maybe just enjoy some amusement at my expense.

Dear RichE,

You write: “The biblical presidency (sic) for killing your children goes something this, “For God loved the physical so much he killed his kid” No. That’s not how it goes at all.

You write: “Really, the Christians, Muslims, and Jews don’t have the same god. I think you need to double check that one Bob.” No, I don’t.

Best wishes,
Bob

Bob,
Re: Christians, Jews, and Muslims having same god. I stand corrected on that even though I find it hard to fathom multiple singularities.
Re: precedence. It’s my understanding the Christian god sacrifice his son Christos, therefor precedence.

Dear God’s Word,

You write: “The Bible provides no condemnation nor frowned upon premarital sex in any of those passages. Fornicators were prostitutes, idolaters worshiped gods like money and power as well as statuary etc.” Au contraire. WE Vine defines fornication as illicit sexual intercourse. Thayer defines it as any illicit sexual intercourse, differentiated from adultery (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon, pg. 532). “The N. T. is characterized by an unconditional repudiation of all extra-marital and unnatural intercourse (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. 6, pg. 590).”

Perhaps I erred in using the adjective mindless. You obviously put thought into your argle-bargle.

Best wishes,
Bob

RichE, What are you talking about? Your comment is so incoherent. Who told you that “‘God is good’ based belief would instruct believers to terminate non-believers”? Christ never preached “to terminate non-believers”! No one was threatened by Christ for non-belief. God gave to man a Free Will.

But islamic allah gives instructions to his followers to kill infidels:

“Allah is an enemy to unbelievers.” – Sura 2:98

“Slay them wherever ye find them and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter.” – Sura 2:191

“Fight against them until idolatry is no more and Allah’s religion reigns supreme.” Sura 2:193

“Fight them until there is no persecution and the religion is God’s entirely.” – Sura 8:39

“Prescribed for you is fighting, though it is hateful to you.”

“Make war on them until idolatry is no more and Allah’s religion reigns supreme.” – Sura 8:39

Please, Do not twist and do not distort Biblical God’s perception.

Best wishes.