Zaac
Well-Known Member
The shameful behavior, though not at all stunning because hypocrites in the church have been doing this for decades, is that folks would dare try to make something into a sin that God doesn't say is a sin.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Ronald Reagan was an abortionist too
- Thread starter Zaac
- Start date
- Status
The shameful behavior, though not at all stunning because hypocrites in the church have been doing this for decades, is that folks would dare try to make something into a sin that God doesn't say is a sin.
Zaac
Well-Known Member
I think God calls murder murder and it doesn't matter what man makes legal. He let them make divorce legal so why not murder? It's the wrong sinful choice. But He never says that having that choice is the sin. But rather shows that carrying out the act at the wrong end of the choice to be the sin.
And ALL sin is a choice.
You can choose to fornicate or not.
You can choose to get a divorce or not.
Etc, etc.
At what point in Scripture does God say the CHOICE is a sin?
I don't have the burden of proof to prove anything. If yall want to believe that something is a sin that God doesn't say is a sin, go right ahead.
I think it is sad how yall are so wrapped up in what yall want that you're now creating new sins.
You are in a state of sin if you're creating new sins to place upon someone else's shoulders a burden you're not bearing yourself. Unless you have deemed that your choice to choose to commit or not commit a sin is a sin, there's nothing to discuss.
And I'm listening for the Scripture passages where someone's choices are now sinful.
totally agree!!!! Amen
Zaac
Well-Known Member
See folks . This is what an absence of love does to the brain. It causes folks to start creating sins for others that don't apply to themselves.
totally agree!!!! Amen
thisnumbersdisconnected
New Member
People who are “pro-choice” believe that they are just defending the right of the mother to decide whether her unborn child lives or dies; thus, “pro-choice.” At the same time, they deny that they have any responsibility for the death of the unborn child if the mother decides to abort.
This is nonsense.
By supporting their right to choose, you are, in effect, implying that you believe either choice, life or death, is equally good and moral, and to the extent that you influence them to agree with you, you share in whatever decision they make. The only way you can avoid a shared responsibility in a decision to abort is to take a stand against abortion, i.e., to be “pro-life.”
Lest one think otherwise, the Bible has a great deal to say about this point. The Bible has stern rebukes and dire warnings for those who approve of sin or encourage others to sin.
Anyone, including born-again Christians, who even approves of or encourages the sin of abortion in any way, will, someday, have to answer to God for it. If that’s you, then now is the time to repent!
This is nonsense.
By supporting their right to choose, you are, in effect, implying that you believe either choice, life or death, is equally good and moral, and to the extent that you influence them to agree with you, you share in whatever decision they make. The only way you can avoid a shared responsibility in a decision to abort is to take a stand against abortion, i.e., to be “pro-life.”
Lest one think otherwise, the Bible has a great deal to say about this point. The Bible has stern rebukes and dire warnings for those who approve of sin or encourage others to sin.
Isaiah 5, NASB
20 Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness;
Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!
Malachi 2
17 You have wearied the LORD with your words. Yet you say, "How have we wearied Him?" In that you say, "Everyone who does evil is good in the sight of the LORD, and He delights in them," or, "Where is the God of justice ?"
Matthew 5
19 "Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20 "For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven."
Matthew 18
5 "And whoever receives one such child in My name receives Me;
6 "but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea."
Romans 14
22 The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. [Emphasis added]
20 Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness;
Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!
Malachi 2
17 You have wearied the LORD with your words. Yet you say, "How have we wearied Him?" In that you say, "Everyone who does evil is good in the sight of the LORD, and He delights in them," or, "Where is the God of justice ?"
Matthew 5
19 "Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20 "For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven."
Matthew 18
5 "And whoever receives one such child in My name receives Me;
6 "but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea."
Romans 14
22 The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. [Emphasis added]
Anyone, including born-again Christians, who even approves of or encourages the sin of abortion in any way, will, someday, have to answer to God for it. If that’s you, then now is the time to repent!
Last edited by a moderator:
Zaac said:
By the definition of burden of proof, you do.
"Burden of proof - citing evidence of one's assertion or accusation"
Let's compromise.
This is your thread and you made the assertion first of the pro-choice movement in America as not being sinful and the accusations first of the rest of us who are pro-life as being in sin of condemning something that God doesn't condemn.
You go first - you made your assertions first - and outline your scriptural support of the pro-choice movement in America and of pro-life people being in sin of condemnation of that movement and all it entails.
I'll go second and give you my burden of proof from the Bible.
That way - we will both have met the burden of proof obligation.
You asserted first - you go first. I'm ready with mine.
Last edited:
Zaac
Well-Known Member
Your whole statement is nonsense. You have a choice everyday to honor and respect the President of the United States. You believing you have that choice isn't a sin.
Yall just come up with this nonsensical logic when it applies to your pet sins.
In supporting your right to choose whether or not you're going to respect or disrespect the President of the United States daily, does that too imply that one believes either choice is equally good or moral?
I don't disagree with this. But that still doesn't make being pro-choice a sin.
Who has approved of sin? Pro-choice means they believe they have the right to decide if they will sin or not.
How bout some woes for those who invent new sins?
Who has encouraged abortion? The folks that need to be repenting are once again sitting in the church with their noses stuck in the air creating new sins.
Zaac
Well-Known Member
By the hand of GOD , I do not. Yall want to create a new sin. And if it's not a new sin, show where Scripture states that believing that you have the right to make a choice is a sin.
Stating God's truth is an assertion only if you don't believe it. You've shown what you believe and how you have come about to fashion this new sin. But you haven't shown where God says that the choice to do right or wrong is a sin.
There's no need for a compromise. God is right and yall are wrong. He hasn't said having a choice is a sin. End of tale.
I haven't said anything about any movement. You're again stuck on the abortion issue. I spoke to the right that people have to decide if they want to do right or wrong. You said it's not the same as free will. I say it's the exact same thing.
A choice is a choice. And believing you have a right to that choice is not a sin.
You must have created a new Bible. Back in the garden, God gave Adam and Eve a choice. They could obey or disobey. Believing they had the right to choose to disobey doesn't make the havinga choice sinful.
There's nothing you can present to me that's gonna okay the creation of a new sin.
No, brother. By the hand of Zaac, you WILL not.
The pro-choice movement in this country involves so much that is an affront to God that it's hard to fathom a Christian who supports the movement.
It doesn't matter which famous person supports the pro-choice movement: Reagan, Mandela, or Obama.
And It doesn't matter WHO in authority over me supports it: my boss, my governor, my president, my Congress, or my mayor.
Denying parents the right to know their underage daughter has had an abortion, promoting Planned Parenthood, defending doctors who butcher - literally butcher a baby born ALIVE and full term, teaching young people that abortion is no different than birth control, the racist overtones in some cities of the ignoring of underage abortion ....
...the complete agenda of the pro-choice movement CANNOT be supported by Christians.
And those that say it's just a choice - someone's personal opinion - and ergo the choice cannot be quantified as sin .....
....I cannot explain thinking at all.
thisnumbersdisconnected
New Member
Deflection, equivocation, fraudulent refocusing ... your post is very strong on all of these, and weak to the point of non-existence of a viable "defense" of your position. Additionally, you deny the Scriptures quoted apply to you, that you have done nothing wrong. So did the harlot Solomon wrote of in Proverbs.
Proverbs 30, NASB
20 This is the way of an adulterous woman:
She eats and wipes her mouth,
And says, "I have done no wrong."
20 This is the way of an adulterous woman:
She eats and wipes her mouth,
And says, "I have done no wrong."
Do you remember that the one who disobeys God is compared to the adulterous woman, Zaac? Do you?
You refuse to see yourself as sinful, so be it. Try denying your sin before God.
And I thought I was on "ignore."
The thread is way off track from the OP.
Reagan signed into law the Therapeutic Abortion Law in California. The "Therapeutic Abortion Act", in an effort to reduce the number of "back-room abortions" performed in California.[7] The State Legislature sent the bill to Reagan's desk where, after many days of indecision, he signed it.[10] About two million abortions would be performed as a result, mostly because of a provision in the bill allowing abortions for the well-being of the mother.[ [from [Wikipedia.org]
Was Reagan right in signing into law one that he felt would reduce "back-room abortions" and protect the well-being of pregnant women?
Is it ever ok to perform an abortion to save the mother?
Reagan signed into law the Therapeutic Abortion Law in California. The "Therapeutic Abortion Act", in an effort to reduce the number of "back-room abortions" performed in California.[7] The State Legislature sent the bill to Reagan's desk where, after many days of indecision, he signed it.[10] About two million abortions would be performed as a result, mostly because of a provision in the bill allowing abortions for the well-being of the mother.[ [from [Wikipedia.org]
Was Reagan right in signing into law one that he felt would reduce "back-room abortions" and protect the well-being of pregnant women?
Is it ever ok to perform an abortion to save the mother?
Zaac
Well-Known Member
No I'm pretty sure by the hand of God that I don't have to prove something is not a sin that He hasn't called a sin.
Again, where have I said that I support a movement? You're STILL talking about a movemnet . I'm talking about people having the God-given free will to make a choice.
Irrelevant as I'm not talking about a movement but a God given right to make a choice to do right or wrong.
Yall are saying that the ability to make a choice that was given by God is now a sin if it's attached to abortion. That's crazy.
You're STILL talking about a movement. I'm talking about free will choice.
Perhaps because you're talking about a movement and I'm talking about free will choice.
Zaac
Well-Known Member
Which gets us back to the purpose of this thread in showing that if Mandella can be called an abortionist, so can Reagan.:thumbsup:
What is has proved is anybody can call anybody else anything, and offer only self-pious condescension when challenged.
Those kind of anybody's are hardly worth talking to.
Those kind of anybody's are hardly worth talking to.
Zaac
Well-Known Member
I'm pretty sure I didn't send you an invite. Put me on IGNORE and you'll never have to worry about it again.:thumbsup:
Why do y'all even try with Zaac?
With his latest "y'all are creating a new sin", he's trying to turn the conversation away from the actions derived from the choice, and trying to get people twisted into knots.
He forgets that Jesus Himself said that adultery wasn't just the act; lust was also defined, by Him, as adultery.
Zaac forgets that Saul didn't cast stones at Stephen; he watched the coats of those who stoned Stephen. Seems to me Saul could constitute an example of "pro-choice" because Saul didn't actually stone anyone, but he supported their choice to do so.
Ya see, y'all defeated Zaac's arguments a long time ago. What you're trying to do now is get Zaac to admit he's wrong, and you're just not gonna be able to do that. He has more fun stirring things up.
With his latest "y'all are creating a new sin", he's trying to turn the conversation away from the actions derived from the choice, and trying to get people twisted into knots.
He forgets that Jesus Himself said that adultery wasn't just the act; lust was also defined, by Him, as adultery.
Zaac forgets that Saul didn't cast stones at Stephen; he watched the coats of those who stoned Stephen. Seems to me Saul could constitute an example of "pro-choice" because Saul didn't actually stone anyone, but he supported their choice to do so.
Ya see, y'all defeated Zaac's arguments a long time ago. What you're trying to do now is get Zaac to admit he's wrong, and you're just not gonna be able to do that. He has more fun stirring things up.
Who says I'm worried about you ?
- Status