1:52 Sunday, November 29, 2009
Biblical Reasons For Concern Regarding The Natrional Health Care Plan:
1) Abortion degrades the gift of life given by God. He creates and values all life...regardless of size or condition. PSALM 139:13-16"...YOU created my inmost being...Your works are wonderful..." JEREMIAH 1:5- "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you; before you were born I set you apart..." 2)Rationing care based upon 'quality of life' is contrary to God's Word. PROVERBS 31:8- "Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the right of all who are destitute." GALATIONS 6:2- Carry each other's burdens,and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ." 3) As people of God,we should not participate in deeds of darkness. EXODUS 23:2- "Do not follow the crowd in doing wrong." EPHESIANS 6:12- "Our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but...against the powers of this dark world..." I know not all believe in God or the Holy Bible but we do and our beleifs must be respected. For more information go to http://www.lutheransforlife.org/ . You will find that this isn't a Lutheran,Roman Catholic or Jewish issue alone. This is an issue of Law not Gospel and the Law is clear on it. If you need to be reminded of the horror of abortion then watch the video I posted of an abortion last month. Watch the child being torn apart limb by limb while fighting for his life. Please pray for those murdered children and pray for the murderers.
1:52
1:52 
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Chris, I'm so thankful you finally got back to abortion. You know how I know people like you have lost an argument? It's when you bring up abortion. That means that you are completely out of sane, reasonable arguments and you're backed into a corner.
ReplyDeleteWhat about the murders that take place because people have no health care, Chris? Does god care about those people? Or is it their fault they have no health care? I suppose it's their responsibility to make sure they have health care even though they're working 3 part-time jobs to make ends meet and none of those jobs offer health care benefits, right.
You are like all the rest of the righteous, hypocritical Christians in this country. You are pro birth, you are anti-life, to be sure. You're on your own. Good luck. You aren't lucky enough to be born to parents that have good health care, that's your fault, isn't it Chris.
God only loves children whose parents have a job with health care and everyone else can go to hell. God doesn't care about you at all once you a born.
I would think as a man that believes in Jesus Christ as his savior you would have been taught to love all people, even people without health care, Chris. You profess to love Jesus Christ, but you don't seem to follow many of his teachings, do you, Chris.
If you really followed the teachings of Christ, Chris, you would be a strong proponent of any kind of health care reform that would mean more of God's children would be able to seek out healing, regardless of ability to pay.
But you're not one of those Christians, are you, Chris?
Chris - as politely as I can put it - keep your Talaban-like theocracy out of our government.
ReplyDeleteBruce, Did you bother to actually read any of the bills?
ReplyDeleteQuote;
"I suppose it's their responsibility to make sure they have health care even though they're working 3 part-time jobs to make ends meet"
It will be MANDATED under this (which is actually un-Constitutional). So if the theorhetical people you speak of can't afford it now , how will they with this garbage?
Also,those same people do not face fines or prison for not having health ins. right now, if this garbage passes,THEY WILL. How on Gods' green Earth will a famimly make ends meet with the bread-winner in frickin prison?
After foreclosure and all savings (if any,now in debt) gone due to trial lawyer fee's they won't be in very good shape. Once again liberals FAULT.
So, Christopher, do you have car insurance? The Constitutional issue is a red herring and I'm sure some Republican will try to bring it up on the floor of the Senate.
ReplyDeleteI do have to admit, I don't much like the bill. I favor a single-payer system and I hope and pray we get there some day.
There is no doubt we could have gotten a better bill than the one in the Senate and I do hope there are improvements once it passes the Senate and gets to conference.
If all the Republican kicking and screaming did anything is give conservative Democrats the heebie jeebies about going for a great bill. Instead we'll have to settle for a mediocre bill and continue to work out the kinks along the way.
People will be able to afford it because there are subsidies based on income that will help them be able to afford it and I'm hoping the subsidies are improved to make it more affordable.
Bruce said,"Chris, I'm so thankful you finally got back to abortion. You know how I know people like you have lost an argument? It's when you bring up abortion. That means that you are completely out of sane, reasonable arguments and you're backed into a corner." No Bruce you are wrong again. It was given to me at Church and I liked it. Don't you ever get tired of attacking conservative Christians and Jews?
ReplyDeleteBruce if you have a question for "god" you need to ask Him not me. It sounds to me like you think God is not a loving God. Bruce you sound like a man on the edge. You need God Bruce and your life wouldn't seem so bad.
ReplyDeleteBruce this health care bill doesn't fix any of the things you say. It doesn't give everyone health care insurance,it takes from the elderly and the youth. We don't want what this bill does and we conservative Christians will go against people like you.
ReplyDeleteMike you on the left are the Liberal Taliban. You want to make us pay for things that are against our religion.You people are the one pushing your Church of Liberalism,as Ann Coulter put it, idealogies. Until you liberals anoint us in everything we find wrong in the world you wont be happy. You Liberal Taliban have pushed your belief systems on us conservatives for too long and now we are fighting back. Your intentions are not good Bruce and Mike as you always lean on the side of Biblicly wrong every time.
ReplyDeleteWhat does car insurance have to do with anything?
ReplyDeleteIs this guy some how suggesting the state requiring people to purchase car insurance to drive a car is the same thing as having the federal government taking over health care?
Where in the constitution is the federal government empowered to do that?
And once again its all the republicans fault, some lib doesnt like the bill it must be those darned republicans messing it up even though it was written 100% by democrats and their special interests and they hold all reins of power.
How pathetic
I just added a video of Obama making a promise to FOCA that is eye opening and scary. We should all thank God that we outnumber the liberals 2 to 1. At 20% or less of the population being liberal always reminds me that we surround them.
ReplyDeleteBruce If this Obama Care is so GREAT WHY has this not become LAW since Democrats hold majority in Both Houses. Just goes to SHOW YA God acts in Mysterious WAYS!
ReplyDeleteThis Whole Obama Care has NOTHING to do with Citizens,and EVERYTHING to do with Socializing Insurance Companies PERIOD. There are ways to fix the problems with Health Care BUT Making a Medicare/Medicade TWO is NOT the Answer. By the way HOW are those TWO Government run Health Care Programs doing! Cutting Billions from Medicare thats Trillions in DEBT will be ONE hell of a MAGIC trick even for the LIBS.
When it all said and done WHAT will the NEW Health Care Bill Provide to ALL that is NOT Available now through Medicade/Medicare?
Just out of Curiosity IF this Helth Care becomes LAW and that aint certain yet WHO will get the MASSIVE Contract to do ALL the Government Paper Work that will be MADE by this Program. Bet its a BIG CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTOR,but we shall see!
I don't think bringing up abortion signals the loss of an argument. I think it's a huge issue and is one of the contributing factors against a stupid health care plan. I work in the medical field and none of my co-workers or others I've spoken to are in favor of this bill. We have enough trouble with the government messing around with the health care system we already have.
ReplyDeleteI have been trying to formulate this post for my blog for a while. Been out of town so my blog hasn't seen any action.
ReplyDeleteAnd Bruce--in case you can't get it through your idiot skull--someone dying of disease because s/he has no healthcare is not murder. It is neither willful nor with intent, nor with malice.
Right Wing Mama, I beg to differ. When insurance companies refuse to cover a fatal illness or injury it is premeditated and that's murder in anyone's book.
ReplyDeleteOh, and pro birth is not the same as pro life.
Mari, it's not the government that is messing with the current system. The current non-system is the fault of the private insurance companies.
ReplyDeleteMama www.lutheransforlife.org has some great info and please feel free to use what you can from my blog. The liberal Democrats have their hearts set on killing babies. We need to do all we can to stop this murdering. I know the Democrats think it is a good way to cut crime but it is sick to think that the poor and people of color are less valuable. These same people that call us crazy would have you hung if you reached into the pouch of a kangaroo and smooshing the little joey with your hands. Or ripping it's legs of one at a time while keeping the head of the joey in the pouch. Why don't we kick a monkey in the womb so it aborts it's baby. But doing it to a human child is no big deal. The liberals side against the Holy Bible,Quaran and Torah every time.
ReplyDeleteWOW, The left wing goes crazy every time someone brings up God. They call you the Taliban for standing up for your beliefs.
ReplyDeleteBy the by, a theocracy is part of God's ultimate plan for the world. Ever hear of the millenial kingdom? Sheesh.
ReplyDeleteIf this NOBAMA Care comes to be and a GROUP of People upon reviewing your Illness/Age determine that Treating YOU is not COST Effective, WILL Bruce call that MURDER or just GOOD Government Run Program!
ReplyDeletePrivate Sector Insurance is trying to be Cost effective in the Free Running of their Companies. Government will ALSO be Cost Effective in the Running of Health Care and have said that COST must be Brought under CONTROL. Wonder how Government will DO that? Could it be by Making Choices Who gets Treated and WHO Does NOT! Sounds to me like Private Sector ONLY now its Government Controlled,NOW thats a Surprize Bruce!
Remember this,Medicare rejects treatment more so than any private insurance policy, and I am sure those numbers will increase dramatically once the government kills off the competition.
ReplyDeleteLibs like to say religion has caused more wars and killing than anything else, But what they fail to mention is that governments have greatly brought more death and destruction than any other entity and these idiots want to empower governemnt even more so over us.
Bruce we all knoiw who turns down coverage more then insurance companies don't you? It is Medicare and Medicaid by far. They turn more people down for coverage then all insurance combined. You knew that as it has been on this blog and other blogs many times in the past so why would you use the lie that insurance is the one to fear when it comes to getting rationed? Is it because you and your ilk just want free health care at any cost because you are all so self centered? We have also proven that conservatives are the ones that take care of the needy and give more of their income then the liberals do by far. Liberals are all talk and do very little to help society better itself.
ReplyDeleteAfter failing to block the debate on the Senate healthcare reform legislation, the Republicans have singled out three Democrats who they say betrayed their principles and electoral pledges by voting to break the filibuster.
ReplyDeleteThe moderate Democrats who all expressed reservations about the bill but ultimately voted in favor of debate were Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas and Ben Nelson of Nebraska.
In particular, Nelson has gone on record as telling ABC’s This Week, "I don’t want a big-government, Washington-run operation that undermines the private insurance that 200 million Americans now have," according to media reports.
This prompted Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele to issue a statement following last weekend’s vote accusing the lawmakers in question of "[sacrificing] their principles to bring America dangerously closer to government-run health care."
Steele summed up their affirmative vote by saying, "Nelson sold out his conscience and voted in favor of federally funded abortions. Lincoln sold out her principles by voting in favor of a government-run insurance plan, something she previously said she opposed. And Landrieu simply sold her vote to the highest bidder after Harry Reid added a $300 million earmark just for Louisiana."
The Senate voted 60-39 on Saturday to break the Republican filibuster, and the bill is expected to move to the floor for debate after Thanksgiving.
The vice chairman of the Republican National Committee (RNC) is promoting a proposed resolution that would warn 2010 GOP candidates that if they do not respect the party's "conservative values," they will not receive the financial backing or endorsement of the RNC.
ReplyDeleteThe "Proposed RNC Resolution on Reagan's Unity Principle for Support of Candidates" was drafted by Jim Bopp, vice chairman of the RNC. It requires that GOP candidates prove not only with their campaign speeches, but also with their voting record that they embrace at least eight of ten conservative principles.
He has yet to get RNC chairman Michael Steele's opinion on his proposal because the resolution was leaked prematurely by "people who are trying to undermine the effort." He says the resolution is designed to ensure the party puts its money where its mouth is.
"The Republican Party needs to reclaim its conservative bona fides," argues Bopp. "The problem is that we lost our way on fiscal conservative policies at the end of the Bush administration with expanding government and increasing debt, and then support of bailouts. So we need to show that we are serious about governing as conservatives."
Bopp says the Republican Party's message is compromised when the party supports liberal Republican candidates like DeDe Scozzafava in the 23rd Congressional District of New York.
Conservatism is on the rise and we wont be happy until you liberals are less then 10% of the American population. That will be a 50% decrease in the current stats.
Chris, you do realize that Ronald Reagan himself would not be able to take the pledge.
ReplyDeleteI hope conservatives go for conservative purity. That's one way to guarantee defeat at the polls next year.
Don't worry Bruce we will make all the liberal wrongs right again. Liberals only make up less then 20% of the population. There are many dagrees of conservative just like liberal. We want fiscal conservative as a main platform. We are nudging the parties to the right just like you have done with the left. I know you want us conservatives to devour the Republican party but that wont happen. We will nudge the Republicans to the right and the Democrats. You liberals will be a dirty word when this conservative movement is all over.
ReplyDeleteChris, right. Things were great under conservatard rule? The Bush years were fantastic under your definition, weren't they, Chris.
ReplyDeleteRepublicans have no credibility on fiscal responsibility.
Who Bruce does have Fiscal Responsibility ,Dodd,Pelosi,Frank and Reid! Lets not forget that Fiscal Responsible Sen. Landrieu of Louisiana who GOT $300 Million of Tax Payers Dollars for making the RIGHT Vote on Health Care! Now there is TRUE Liberal Fiscal Responsibility its CALLED PORK and we the Tax Payers got PORKED plane and Simple!
ReplyDeleteYou are off the wall Bruce. I never said the Bush years were great but they are much better then what we have now. The spending is out of control now and it was under Bush too. Bruce don't be such a drama queen. You libs are so black or white, hot or cold. This country and the world has become more liberal over the last 60 years. Now we are too liberal in all maners. But the fiscal liberals have to go now. Those liberals will be rooted out of our gov't over the next decade or less.
ReplyDeleteChris, we are the liberal taliban? we are a religous conservative government that oppouses holy laws as sate laws. That sounds more like the religous rightwing of the Republican party to me brother.
ReplyDeleteI know your RW cronies get all in a tizzy when you guys call names, but it doesn't prove your point, by making things up that have no basis in reality. The liberal this and the liberal that, nice christain attitude you have brother..remind me why i don't go to church. F-ing holier than thou modern day pharicees.
Al, did Bush and the Republican Congress he had for 8 years institute pay-go rules for spending? I'll help you out. NO, they didn't. Who kept the wars off budget? The Republicans and George W. Bush.
ReplyDeleteYou may not like it, but Democrats are at least making an attempt to pay for whatever programs they institute.
Bush and the Republican Congress wasn't even honest enough to put the war on the regular budget. It was always an emergency supplemental, even after 7 years.
Republicans and conservatives have no credibility on fiscal responsibility, as I've said many times.
Mary Landrieu didn't get the money personally. The money will go to her constituents for programs that are needed in her state. You make it sound as if the money is going in her personal bank account. This kind of stuff goes on all the time, especially with Republicans.
No Joe you are the religious left liberal taliban. The taliban like big govt and control over it's people just like you on the left do. And if you think liberalism isn't a religion then you are mistaken.
ReplyDeleteJoe why do you think you are so much better then us Christians? Do you even know how much of a pharisee you are with your statements? You are one of the most self righteous people I have ever read brother.
ReplyDeleteRelationship to other movements
ReplyDeleteThe Pharisees were one of at least four major schools of thought within the Jewish religion around the first century and were most prominently in opposition to the Sadducee sect. They were also one of several successor groups of the Hasidim (the "pious"), an anti-Hellenistic Jewish movement that formed in the time of the Seleucid king, Antiochus Epiphanes (175–163 BCE). (This group is distinct from the Hasidism established in 18th century Europe.) The social standing and beliefs of the Pharisees changed over time, such that the role, significance, and meaning of the Pharisees evolved as political and social conditions in Judea changed. The sages of the Talmud see a direct link between themselves and the Pharisees, and historians generally consider Pharisaic Judaism to be the progenitor of Rabbinic Judaism, that is normative, mainstream Judaism after the destruction of the Second Temple.
The first mention of the Pharisees is by the Jewish-Roman historian Josephus, in a description of the "four schools of thought" (that is, sects, social groups, or movements) into which the Jews were divided in the 1st century CE. The other schools were the Essenes, the revolutionaries, and the Sadducees. The Essenes were generally apolitical. The revolutionary groups, such as the Sicarii and the Zealots, emerged specifically to resist the Roman Empire. Other sects emerged at this time, such as the Early Christians in Jerusalem and the Therapeutae in Egypt. The Pharisees and their opponents the Sadducees were two of the earliest sects to emerge in the Second Temple period, as political factions during the Hellenist Hasmonean rule. At no time did any of these sects constitute a majority; most Jews were non-sectarian. However, Josephus indicates that the Pharisees received the backing and good-will of the common people, apparently in contrast to the more elite Sadducees associated with the ruling classes. Nevertheless, these sects are emblematic of the different responses of Jews to the political, economic, and cultural forces that characterized the Second Temple era.
For most of their history, Pharisees considered themselves in opposition to the Sadducees. Conflicts between the Sadducees and the Pharisees took place in the context of much broader conflicts among Jews in the Second Temple era, which followed the Babylonian captivity of Judah. One conflict was class, between the wealthy and the poor. Another conflict was cultural, between those who favored hellenization and those who resisted it. A third was juridico-religious, between those who emphasized the importance of the Temple, and those who emphasized the importance of other Mosaic laws and prophetic values. A fourth, specifically religious, involved different interpretations of the Bible (or Tanakh), and how to apply the Torah to Jewish life, with the Sadducees recognizing only the written letter of the Tanakh or Torah and rejecting life after death, while the Pharisees held to Rabbinic interpretations additional to the written texts.
These conflicts, practically speaking, define the Second Temple Era, a time when the Temple had tremendous authority but questionable legitimacy, and a time when the sacred literature of the Torah, and Bible or Tanakh were being canonized. Fundamentally, Sadducees and Pharisees took clearly opposing positions concerning the third and fourth conflicts, but at different times were influenced by the other conflicts. In general, whereas the Sadducees were conservative, aristocratic monarchists, the Pharisees were eclectic, popular and more democratic. (Roth 1970: 84) The Pharisaic position is exemplified by the assertion that "A learned mamzer takes precedence over an ignorant High Priest." (A mamzer, according to the Pharasaic definition, is an outcast child born of a forbidden relationship, such as adultery or incest, in which marriage of the parents could not lawfully occur. The word is often, but incorrectly, translated as "illegitimate" or "bastard.")[2]
Bruce Once again your LOOKING in your REAR View MIRROR BUT just as a reminder WHOM had Control of the Congress from 2006/2008 so ONCE again it was a GROUP effort which you DO not seem to Care about Since it DUNT fit YOUR SPIN
ReplyDeleteAll these WONDERFUL Programs that Obama is trying to get through a LIBERAL majority in CONGRESS which will COST TRILLIONS, whom will pay for that, TAXPAYERS, that HAVE not been BORN yet!
And now back to the 300 Million dollar BRIBE and that is what is was,Getting Money for Influence(VOTE) on a Bill actually does sound like Politics as USUAL.
Now if Senator from Louisiana got HER payoff WHY did OUR two Brilliant Senators not HOLD OUT unless OUR State that they are SUPPOSE to represent is NOT as bad off Financially as WE Michiganders THINK! Once again 300 Million could help put Few Citizens BACK to Work but MAYBE our UNEMPLOYMENT is SO low we DONT need the MONEY!