• 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!

SoCal Muslims

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
When many denominations endorse the slaughter of the unborn or "passing their children through the fire to Molech" as Scripture would say what can be wrong with cozying up to pagans?

The United Church of Christ (UCC)
has strongly supported the legalization of abortion since 1971. The UCC supported FOCA and strongly opposed the PBA ban to the point of joining the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARRAL) in a statement affirming President Clinton’s veto of the PBA Ban Act in 1996. The UCC has also called for the church to support abortion in any national health care bill.

American Baptist Churches
leaves abortion policy to local churches and individuals. A resolution adopted in 1988, updated in 1994 and accepted as current policy, "acknowledges diversity of ... convictions within our fellowship," making no distinction between those who believe that human life begins at conception (with the consequence that abortion is immoral), and those who believe it can be morally acceptable based on "compassion and justice." This relativism gives no protection to the unborn child, and little guidance to women and men who must live with the consequences of their choice.

The Presbyterian Church (USA)
historically opposed abortion. As recently as 1965, it said, "The fetus is a human life to be protected by the criminal law from the moment when the ovum is fertilized ... As Christians, we believe that this should not be an individual decision on the part of the physician and the couple. ..." In 1970 the PCUSA issued a study report which regarded abortion as help for unwanted pregnancies and in 1972 language regarding "personal choice" and "responsible decision" regarding abortion began to appear in church documents.

In 1983, the PCUSA General Assembly adopted a policy which affirmed abortion as a "stewardship responsibility." PCUSA today actively supports the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC, formerly known as the Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights, or RCAR). In 1992, after restudying the issue, the General Assembly adopted a new policy which states that "there is a basis in our tradition not only for a woman’s difficult choice for abortion, but also for the preservation of the lives of the unborn because they are human beings made in God’s image." In 1997, the PCUSA broke with other pro-abortion churches to become the first major mainline denomination to take a position expressing "grave moral concern" about partial-birth abortions.

The United Methodist Church
began in the early 1970s to view abortion as a "choice". The United Methodist position in favor of abortion has been so strong that two of its institutions helped organize and affiliate with the Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights. For many years RCAR used office space in the United Methodist Building which is located across the street from the U.S. Supreme Court. In both 1996 and 1997 the United Methodist Church publicly supported President Clinton’s veto of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. While the 1996 United Methodist Church’s Book of Discipline still maintains a strong pro-abortion position, it now includes wording recognizing the "sanctity of unborn human life." It further states, "We cannot affirm abortion as an acceptable means of birth control and we unconditionally reject it as a means of gender selection."

The Episcopal Church
as late as 1958 held a strong pro-life position, stating, "Abortion and infanticide are to be condemned." In 1967, the 62nd General Convention of the Episcopal Church supported abortion law "reform," to permit the "termination of pregnancy" for reasons of life, rape, incest, fetal deformity, or physical or mental health of the mother. In 1982, the 66th General Convention condemned the use of abortion as a means of gender selection and non-serious abnormalities.

By 1988, the 69th General Convention had developed a position that stated, "All human life is sacred. Hence it is sacred from its inception until death." The statement goes on to call for church programs to assist women with problem pregnancies and to emphasize the seriousness of the abortion decision. In 1994, the 71st General Convention expressed "unequivocal opposition to any ... action ... that [would] abridge the right of a woman to reach an informed decision about the termination of her pregnancy, or that would limit the access of a woman to a safe means of acting upon her decision." In 1997, at the 72nd General Convention, the delegates approved a resolution that did not condemn partial-birth abortions but expressed grave concerns about the procedure, "except in extreme situtions."

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA)
is a union of three smaller Lutheran denominations which merged in 1988. Each had different views on on abortion. In 1990, the ELCA adopted a statement that accepts abortion but only as a "last resort" in the most extreme circumstances. The statement goes on to say that it opposes abortion ist except in the cases of "clear threat to the life of the woman", "extreme fetal abnormality" incompatible with life, and in cases of rape and incest. Beyond these cases "this church neither supports nor opposes" other abortion-restricting legislation. At the ELCA's 1997 convention, a resolution to restrict ELCA funding of abortions to the three cases stated above was rejected 70%-30%. The ELCA funds elective abortions in the church’s health care coverage for pastors and professional church workers, and some Lutheran-affiliated hospital perform elective abortions.

http://www.pregnantpause.org/people/wherchur.htm
 

righteousdude2

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
This May Solicit Some Real Spin and Ire Towards You...

http://lastresistance.com/689/muslims-to-hold-conference-at-episcopal-church-in-california/

After reading this article, I'm pretty sure this is the same organization that associate pastors from Saddleback were meeting with in hopes of interfaith ministries?

Thanks for having the guts to post this.

I was raked over the coals, and carpet when I posted this, but I'll post it in support of your OP - http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.ph...ight-wing-extremists-for-hosting-mpac/0019538
I contend that to participate in this kind of conference is to be on the cusp of violating the intent of Paul's warning to NOT be unequally yoked. That does not mean RW or anyone else [Christians named in article] are supporting worldwide religion. I only show this post to say that in my heart, I can't, in good consciousness, attend such a meeting.
 

Zaac

Well-Known Member
Thanks for having the guts to post this.

I was raked over the coals, and carpet when I posted this, but I'll post it in support of your OP - http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.ph...ight-wing-extremists-for-hosting-mpac/0019538
I contend that to participate in this kind of conference is to be on the cusp of violating the intent of Paul's warning to NOT be unequally yoked. That does not mean RW or anyone else [Christians named in article] are supporting worldwide religion. I only show this post to say that in my heart, I can't, in good consciousness, attend such a meeting.

This ain't no cusp issue. You're going to allow false god worshipers to take up shop in God's house? (smh) Absolutely crazy.

But then again, this looks no worse than Christians seemingly yoking themselves to a Mormon for political purposes.

And the world isn't going to view it as being much different.
 

righteousdude2

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Well, I Used "Cusp!"

This ain't no cusp issue. You're going to allow false god worshipers to take up shop in God's house? (smh) Absolutely crazy.

But then again, this looks no worse than Christians seemingly yoking themselves to a Mormon for political purposes.

And the world isn't going to view it as being much different.

...because unlike you, I did not want to draw the ire of others. I've been accused of being against the ecumenical thing on another post, and my words have been misrepresented, so I tried to be a little PC in approaching the EM.

When I used "cusp" what I meant was, to do what is mentioned in this news article, puts the believer at no less than the "cusp" of being uneequally yoked, and it is a sin to be unequally yoked. It is, pure and simple, being unequally yoked to sit down and fellowship, or teach at these ecumenical conferences, and we both know that. However, I didn't feel like being torn apart for sharing what I believe. Sometimes, it's just easier to let those who believe differently about the ecumenical thing, to do what they want. God will take care of teaching them when the time comes. :smilewinkgrin:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

SolaSaint

Well-Known Member
We are doing a Sunday School lesson in Hosea tomorrow and it's about the spiritual adultry the Israelites played with Baal worship. I see this as the same thing, playing around with Islam.
 

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
We are doing a Sunday School lesson in Hosea tomorrow and it's about the spiritual adultry the Israelites played with Baal worship. I see this as the same thing, playing around with Islam.

You are so right but that is what liberal "Christianity" has been doing for years. However, this time they are sticking their foolish head into the lion's mouth! Or Worse!
 

Zaac

Well-Known Member
...because unlike you, I did not want to draw the ire of others. I've been accused of being against the ecumenical thing on another post, and my words have been misrepresented, so I tried to be a little PC in approaching the EM.

I simply don't mind drawing the ire of others for speaking God's truth. Ain't no need to accuse me of being against the ecumenical thing because I fully admit to being against ecumenicalism that goes against God's word.

You don't EVER yoke with that which is against Christ.

When I used "cusp" what I meant was, to do what is mentioned in this news article, puts the believer at no less than the "cusp" of being uneequally yoked, and it is a sin to be unequally yoked. It is, pure and simple, being unequally yoked to sit down and fellowship, or teach at these ecumenical conferences, and we both know that. However, I didn't feel like being torn apart for sharing what I believe. Sometimes, it's just easier to let those who believe differently about the ecumenical thing, to do what they want. God will take care of teaching them when the time comes. :smilewinkgrin:

I understand. But you did it because you didn't feel like being torn apart, not because it was the right thing to do. That's what's gotten the church in trouble.

Preach the word. It doesn't matter if the world or other Christians disagree with it. Preach the word. Be pleasing to God if that offends everyone else, oh well. :laugh:
 

righteousdude2

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Tact -vs- Attack....

I simply don't mind drawing the ire of others for speaking God's truth. Ain't no need to accuse me of being against the ecumenical thing because I fully admit to being against ecumenicalism that goes against God's word.

You don't EVER yoke with that which is against Christ.



I understand. But you did it because you didn't feel like being torn apart, not because it was the right thing to do. That's what's gotten the church in trouble.

Preach the word. It doesn't matter if the world or other Christians disagree with it. Preach the word. Be pleasing to God if that offends everyone else, oh well. :laugh:

...there is a difference between attacking another, and being tactful. As far as I am concerned, I don't come out an attack another believer, not because I don't believe, one way or the other, but because I try to wrap my thoughts in love.
You have your way, and I have mine. My grammy always said, "Paul, you can more flies with honey than you can with vinegar!" What I assume she means is, you can get what you want done better with sweetness/kindness rather than with a caustic attitude!

We have two different approaches to the truth, but I'm sure we both accomplish the same results. I know I do! I don't need to ruffle feathers as I'm sure God on judgment day will do that when He tells the multitudes, they were wrong and heading back south for eternity. :laugh:
 

pinoybaptist

Active Member
Site Supporter
from the article:
....what better way than to appear all friendly and buddy-buddy with local churches.
They are not simply trying to appear thus, but to Islam every act is an opportunity to show off.
Former Islamists will tell you that this is symbolic of conquest of, or imminent victory over, a foe.
Like the attempt to construct a Mosque near ground zero in New York.
They are enemies of Christianity, and every other faith, as much as they are sworn enemies of Israel and Zionism.
Their purpose, whether they admit it or not, is to overrun the entire world with Islam, by hook or by crook, by diplomacy or by force.
It is their avowed purpose of the total annihilation of an entire race, the Jews, which is the reason I did a 180 and supported Israel instead, not because I believe that Israel will be the future seat of the coming King of kings.
There is no such thing as moderate Islam, there is only militant Islam.
I don't care if a Muslim was born and raised in a southern drawl, a midwest twang, a California or Brooklyn accent, blonde, blue-eyed, or sheet-white, he/she is potentially an enemy of Americans in general, and Christians and Jews, in particular.
I'd keep an eye open around them as much as I'd keep my eye open when I know there's a wild animal lurking somewhere in my backyard.
Finally, these stupid liberal Christians should ask themselves, what if it were the other way around.
What if America were Muslim, and they were the ones asking permission to hold one of their affairs in a mosque, or even an adjacent building in mosque ground ?
Will the Muslims happily allow the "infidels" to use their sacred ground ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
from the article:
....what better way than to appear all friendly and buddy-buddy with local churches.
They are not simply trying to appear thus, but to Islam every act is an opportunity to show off.
Former Islamists will tell you that this is symbolic of conquest of, or imminent victory over, a foe.
Like the attempt to construct a Mosque near ground zero in New York.
They are enemies of Christianity, and every other faith, as much as they are sworn enemies of Israel and Zionism.
Their purpose, whether they admit it or not, is to overrun the entire world with Islam, by hook or by crook, by diplomacy or by force.
It is their avowed purpose of the total annihilation of an entire race, the Jews, which is the reason I did a 180 and supported Israel instead, not because I believe that Israel will be the future seat of the coming King of kings.
There is no such thing as moderate Islam, there is only militant Islam.
I don't care if a Muslim was born and raised in a southern drawl, a midwest twang, a California or Brooklyn accent, blonde, blue-eyed, or sheet-white, he/she is potentially an enemy of Americans in general, and Christians and Jews, in particular.
I'd keep an eye open around them as much as I'd keep my eye open when I know there's a wild animal lurking somewhere in my backyard.
Finally, these stupid liberal Christians should ask themselves, what if it were the other way around.
What if America were Muslim, and they were the ones asking permission to hold one of their affairs in a mosque, or even an adjacent building in mosque ground ?
Will the Muslims happily allow the "infidels" to use their sacred ground ?

I am not sure I would write it like you have but I agree with ~99.99% of your comments!
 
Top