[WideRight05]

The final vote on the issue was 54-42. Here are the people who broke party lines on the issue:

Democrats Joe Manchin (WV), Bob Casey (PA) and Joe Donnelly (IN) voted in favor of the 20-week abortion ban.

Republicans Mark Kirk and Susan Collins both voted against the 20-week abortion ban.

Shame on our country for allowing this barbaric behavior to happen.

[Harry Rex Vonner]

Kirk and Collins need to be remembered. Would Casey Manchin, and Donnelly have so voted if the Democrats needed their votes?

This country in general and Democrats in particular deserve a lot worse than shame. Of course, words harm no one so maybe some sticks and stones are needed somewhere along the line. And, if we are honest, we must admit that prayers are not producing anything.

[WideRight05]

Kirk and Collins need to be remembered. Would Casey Manchin, and Donnelly have so voted if the Democrats needed their votes?

This country in general and Democrats in particular deserve a lot worse than shame. Of course, words harm no one so maybe some sticks and stones are needed somewhere along the line. And, if we are honest, we must admit that prayers are not producing anything.

I honestly don't see why Collins has not joined the Democratic party up to now. She honestly fits better with them on most issues. Mark Kirk is fiscally conservative but socially liberal.

Bob Casey claims to be pro-life, but only has a 20% approval rating from National Right to Life. Manchin seems to have voted pro-life more often than not, but even his record is sketchy to say the least. He does believe this time around that planned parenthood should be defunded and he is voting for the 20 week abortion ban. Donnelly has probably the most consistent pro-life voting record of the three. Of course, his record on gay "marriage" is not a pretty one.

Several Democrats, past and present, were pro-life at one point in their careers. Some have made stronger efforts to stop abortion and some have become pro-choice mainly to stick to party lines. Take Joe Biden for example. I'm no Joe Biden fan, but I truly believe that he thinks that abortion is morally wrong. However, he feels that it's not his duty to step in and make a moral decision in that he feels he is "forcing his morality" on people. That kind of mentality is disappointing.

*Jimmy Carter has mentioned his wish that the Democrats become more pro-life as a party.
*Dick Durbin of Illinois used to be pro-life until 1989 when he reversed his decision.
*Jesse Jackson was a strong pro-life advocate in the 1970's. He made several efforts to try to reverse the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.
*Kentucky's Wendell Ford was pro-life.
*Even Ted Kennedy, prior to the 1973 decision held a position of being pro-life.

[TheRealThing]

I honestly don't see why Collins has not joined the Democratic party up to now. She honestly fits better with them on most issues. Mark Kirk is fiscally conservative but socially liberal.

Bob Casey claims to be pro-life, but only has a 20% approval rating from National Right to Life. Manchin seems to have voted pro-life more often than not, but even his record is sketchy to say the least. He does believe this time around that planned parenthood should be defunded and he is voting for the 20 week abortion ban. Donnelly has probably the most consistent pro-life voting record of the three. Of course, his record on gay "marriage" is not a pretty one.

Several Democrats, past and present, were pro-life at one point in their careers. Some have made stronger efforts to stop abortion and some have become pro-choice mainly to stick to party lines. Take Joe Biden for example. I'm no Joe Biden fan, but I truly believe that he thinks that abortion is morally wrong. However, he feels that it's not his duty to step in and make a moral decision in that he feels he is "forcing his morality" on people. That kind of mentality is disappointing.

*Jimmy Carter has mentioned his wish that the Democrats become more pro-life as a party.
*Dick Durbin of Illinois used to be pro-life until 1989 when he reversed his decision.
*Jesse Jackson was a strong pro-life advocate in the 1970's. He made several efforts to try to reverse the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.
*Kentucky's Wendell Ford was pro-life.
*Even Ted Kennedy, prior to the 1973 decision held a position of being pro-life.

The vast majority of the US Congress have become so desensitized to the immoral and the unacceptable, that they are no longer of any use. Everything they say and everything they do, is weighed in the balances of their reelection prospects. Their whole record of service amounts to little more than an act.

For example, it hasn't occurred to Obama or the vast majority of the Congress, that issues of our national defense are not merely the stuff of political fodder to help them win elections. Obama won't know serious the horrors of war are until the Hawaiian Island on which he intends to retire is blown out from under his feet. He and the rest of the left are clueless about the threats we face as was revealed in his ridicule of Mitt Romney who said that "Russia is the US's #1 Geopolitical foe." Thereby becoming the ultimate embodiment of naïvité. And yet, as is often the case among those who don't know what they're doing, he and others on the left have plenty enough 'cheek' to mock those who have/had a superior understanding and a record to prove it. And have been willing therefore, to openly trash and laugh at the exemplary record of legendary US statesman gone on, in favor of the shallowness of liberalism.

No, from the secular standpoint there is only one way to deal with those who support evil. Vote out those who openly trash our traditional values and those who hold them and replace them with those who do. A worn out campaign slogan heard over and over again goes like this; "Time for a Change." Even Obama used a variant in his campaign. I would suggest a new slogan which I believe to be more apropos, "Time for a Flush." :biggrin:

[WideRight05]

The vast majority of the US Congress have become so desensitized to the immoral and the unacceptable, that they are no longer of any use. Everything they say and everything they do, is weighed in the balances of their reelection prospects. Their whole record of service amounts to little more than an act.

For example, it hasn't occurred to Obama or the vast majority of the Congress, that issues of our national defense are not merely the stuff of political fodder to help them win elections. Obama won't know serious the horrors of war are until the Hawaiian Island on which he intends to retire is blown out from under his feet. He and the rest of the left are clueless about the threats we face as was revealed in his ridicule of Mitt Romney who said that "Russia is the US's #1 Geopolitical foe." Thereby becoming the ultimate embodiment of naïvité. And yet, as is often the case among those who don't know what they're doing, he and others on the left have plenty enough 'cheek' to mock those who have/had a superior understanding and a record to prove it. And have been willing therefore, to openly trash and laugh at the exemplary record of legendary US statesman gone on, in favor of the shallowness of liberalism.

No, from the secular standpoint there is only one way to deal with those who support evil. Vote out those who openly trash our traditional values and those who hold them and replace them with those who do. A worn out campaign slogan heard over and over again goes like this; "Time for a Change." Even Obama used a variant in his campaign. I would suggest a new slogan which I believe to be more apropos, "Time for a Flush." :biggrin:

Well said TRT.

I think back in our culture, to some of the great shows back in the day. Take The Brady Bunch, for example. The creators debated having Mrs. Brady be a divorced woman, but ultimately decided not to due to fear of backlash at the time. If that show were created in today's time, there would probably be a backlash because of the representation of a traditional family on TV.

We have slowly gained "tolerance" for lifestyles contrary to Biblical and natural belief. From abortion to gay rights to now transgender celebrations, we are taking all the wrong steps as a country.

Political parties have been a factor in destroying us from within. Back in the 1950's Dwight Eisenhower had some support in both parties. At one time his rating with Democrats polled around 50% - which would be unthinkable in this time. Since then, approval ratings for each president have become higher and higher within their own party while decreasing with the opposing party.

Part of this problem with planned parenthood stems from that, political parties. Most of the Democrats truly feel that this is wrong, and several liberal organizations (Ex: University of Missouri) have distanced themselves from planned parenthood. Even Joe Biden believes that abortion is wrong. Unfortunately, at this time he doesn't have the courage to take a stand and say that it should be illegal.

[TheRealThing]

Well said TRT.

I think back in our culture, to some of the great shows back in the day. Take The Brady Bunch, for example. The creators debated having Mrs. Brady be a divorced woman, but ultimately decided not to due to fear of backlash at the time. If that show were created in today's time, there would probably be a backlash because of the representation of a traditional family on TV.

We have slowly gained "tolerance" for lifestyles contrary to Biblical and natural belief. From abortion to gay rights to now transgender celebrations, we are taking all the wrong steps as a country.

Political parties have been a factor in destroying us from within. Back in the 1950's Dwight Eisenhower had some support in both parties. At one time his rating with Democrats polled around 50% - which would be unthinkable in this time. Since then, approval ratings for each president have become higher and higher within their own party while decreasing with the opposing party.

Part of this problem with planned parenthood stems from that, political parties. Most of the Democrats truly feel that this is wrong, and several liberal organizations (Ex: University of Missouri) have distanced themselves from planned parenthood. Even Joe Biden believes that abortion is wrong. Unfortunately, at this time he doesn't have the courage to take a stand and say that it should be illegal.

Yeah, Biden has been asked about that in the past. But as I said, the priority with these guys will always be politics and concerns about what they say, because ultimately those things might negatively affect their base. But, where the Catholic Church is concerned, I have read several articles suggesting the Church is presently undergoing careful reformation.

[WideRight05]

Yeah, Biden has been asked about that in the past. But as I said, the priority with these guys will always be politics and concerns about what they say, because ultimately those things might negatively affect their base. But, where the Catholic Church is concerned, I have read several articles suggesting the Church is presently undergoing careful reformation.

I hope not. I know they are seeking to improve communications, but at this point they are clinging to their values. They need to take a firm stand on right and wrong and not give in to society. The clammy tentacles of the LGBT movement have hit western Europe pretty hard, but at this point the eastern European countries are highly conservative socially. Italy seems to be split 50/50 on the issue. Considering an estimated 300,000 - 1,000,000 people just marched against civil unions (and that's not even as far as marriage) hopefully the influence there will continue to last and grow.

Pope Francis is much more conservative than he's being presented as. I wish he would take a stronger stand against communism rather than capitalism and I certainly don't agree with his stance on global warming, but he does believe in the structure of the traditional family as well as being pro-life. He is big about how the Church presents itself. The media, for whatever reason, is out to try to twist his words in any way they can. I do wish he would place an emphasis on protecting the unborn.

We are seeing a cultural shift in some Churches. The United Church of Christ, well, Barack Obama was a member of that Church for many years. I am greatly disappointed in the Episcopal and Presbyterian Churches, both of whom in recent years have decided to accept gay marriage into their congregations. It's not a surprise though given how their congregations have been susceptible to "evolving" with society on moral issues. I anticipate the Methodist Church of "open minds, open hearts, and open doors" will eventually cave to it. Right now they are at a 50/50 split on the marriage issue, but they do believe in pretty much everything except for marriage. Not to mention, they call it sexual orientation.

"Equal Rights Regardless of Sexual Orientation

Certain basic human rights and civil liberties are due all persons. We are committed to supporting those rights and liberties for all persons, regardless of sexual orientation.

We see a clear issue of simple justice in protecting the rightful claims where people have shared material resources, pensions, guardian relationships, mutual powers of attorney, and other such lawful claims typically attendant to contractual relationships that involve shared contributions, responsibilities, and liabilities, and equal protection before the law.

Moreover, we support efforts to stop violence and other forms of coercion against all persons, regardless of sexual orientation."

Some Methodist Churches are more liberal than others. There are some that are all about bowing down to the LGBT community while others cling to traditional values.

I would say that at this point the Catholic Church has held to traditional views moreso than the Episcopal, Presbyterian, United Church of Christ, or even the Methodist Church. The big issue with Catholicism is that they have the Catechisms.

This comes from the Catechisms:

Article 6:2357 - Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

It's clear as clear gets. I'm not Catholic, but if one who is questions the passages in The Books of Leviticus or Romans, they definitely shouldn't be questioning the clarity of this.

Barack Obama certainly did a great job with the freak show he sent out to greet Francis, didn't he?

[TheRealThing]

I hope not. I know they are seeking to improve communications, but at this point they are clinging to their values. They need to take a firm stand on right and wrong and not give in to society. The clammy tentacles of the LGBT movement have hit western Europe pretty hard, but at this point the eastern European countries are highly conservative socially. Italy seems to be split 50/50 on the issue. Considering an estimated 300,000 - 1,000,000 people just marched against civil unions (and that's not even as far as marriage) hopefully the influence there will continue to last and grow.

Pope Francis is much more conservative than he's being presented as. I wish he would take a stronger stand against communism rather than capitalism and I certainly don't agree with his stance on global warming, but he does believe in the structure of the traditional family as well as being pro-life. He is big about how the Church presents itself. The media, for whatever reason, is out to try to twist his words in any way they can. I do wish he would place an emphasis on protecting the unborn.

We are seeing a cultural shift in some Churches. The United Church of Christ, well, Barack Obama was a member of that Church for many years. I am greatly disappointed in the Episcopal and Presbyterian Churches, both of whom in recent years have decided to accept gay marriage into their congregations. It's not a surprise though given how their congregations have been susceptible to "evolving" with society on moral issues. I anticipate the Methodist Church of "open minds, open hearts, and open doors" will eventually cave to it. Right now they are at a 50/50 split on the marriage issue, but they do believe in pretty much everything except for marriage. Not to mention, they call it sexual orientation.

"Equal Rights Regardless of Sexual Orientation

Certain basic human rights and civil liberties are due all persons. We are committed to supporting those rights and liberties for all persons, regardless of sexual orientation.

We see a clear issue of simple justice in protecting the rightful claims where people have shared material resources, pensions, guardian relationships, mutual powers of attorney, and other such lawful claims typically attendant to contractual relationships that involve shared contributions, responsibilities, and liabilities, and equal protection before the law.

Moreover, we support efforts to stop violence and other forms of coercion against all persons, regardless of sexual orientation."

Some Methodist Churches are more liberal than others. There are some that are all about bowing down to the LGBT community while others cling to traditional values.

I would say that at this point the Catholic Church has held to traditional views moreso than the Episcopal, Presbyterian, United Church of Christ, or even the Methodist Church. The big issue with Catholicism is that they have the Catechisms.

This comes from the Catechisms:

Article 6:2357 - Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

It's clear as clear gets. I'm not Catholic, but if one who is questions the passages in The Books of Leviticus or Romans, they definitely shouldn't be questioning the clarity of this.

Barack Obama certainly did a great job with the freak show he sent out to greet Francis, didn't he?

Yes he did. And it's really annoying that so many among the media are steadfast to report that Obama is a Christian. That situation does however serve as a glaring example of what most people think Christianity is all about. I can assure them that tolerance of abortion and homosexuality is not representative of viable Christianity.

This idea that Christians are not to judge others does not mean we are to accept those sins, or the raft of legislation coming down in support of them. Christians are led by the Holy Spirit, and though they may well feel led to witness to these folks, they will never be led to embrace them as being different. As I have said in the past, if it had been the Lord Who made them do such things, He wouldn't be right in judging them for committing those sins.

[TheRealThing]

^^ By way of clarification with regard to the last sentence above, I meant the following when I said it was the Lord Who made them do such things; It's all about choice.

Many today insist that homosexuals do not have any choice in the matter. In other words in the interest of absolving themselves of responsibility or guilt, homosexuals contend that being gay is their natural state. They ask, was it not the Lord Who created them to be gay? Thus they argue, living straight would be in conflict with their inner nature. An absurd claim to be sure. The Lord has clearly set forth the promise of judgment against ALL those who live a homosexual lifestyle and wind up dying in an unrepentant state as was written in Romans Chapter 1.

It seems to be an altogether unacceptable premise then, to think that the Lord would judge gays condemning them to eternal punishment in Hell, if it had been He Who had created them gay in the first place. Again, the homosexual pursuit is a choice and that choice always brings with it the judgment of God. Recognizing with the intended clarity the awful penalty attached to that particular sin then, is not a situation where men judge other men. It is merely a matter of those who were created accepting the authority of their Creator, God. Something BTW, that our courts and our politicians are for the most part, unwilling to do.

Same thing holds true for women who for convenience sake make the choice to abort their baby. Ironically in the case of abortion, arguing strenuously for the right to choose.

We men, are not to judge one another because, it is by God's standard that we will be judged. None the less, the Lord has called out sin clearly for what it is in Scripture, so that we may recognize it when we see it. But, Satan knows a good gimmick when he sees one, and there is one in particular that never grows old and never fails to work. It is the very same rationale he used to guide Eve into temptation, who then fell into sin seemingly within minutes of being tempted. Word twisting. Paraphrased Satan asked, "did God really mean that? You shall not surely die if you eat of it."

Today the enlightened liberal questions the character of God Himself. Questioning whether God has the right to judge men. I believe He does, and I believe He will. Meanwhile, we see the secular parallel of the Devil's default tool being employed by men daily. Politicians borrowing from Satan's play book, continually deny, distort and twist the meaning of language when it serves their purpose.

[WideRight05]

^^ By way of clarification with regard to the last sentence above, I meant the following when I said it was the Lord Who made them do such things; It's all about choice.

Many today insist that homosexuals do not have any choice in the matter. In other words in the interest of absolving themselves of responsibility or guilt, homosexuals contend that being gay is their natural state. They ask, was it not the Lord Who created them to be gay? Thus they argue, living straight would be in conflict with their inner nature. An absurd claim to be sure. The Lord has clearly set forth the promise of judgment against ALL those who live a homosexual lifestyle and wind up dying in an unrepentant state as was written in Romans Chapter 1.

It seems to be an altogether unacceptable premise then, to think that the Lord would judge gays condemning them to eternal punishment in Hell, if it had been He Who had created them gay in the first place. Again, the homosexual pursuit is a choice and that choice always brings with it the judgment of God. Recognizing with the intended clarity the awful penalty attached to that particular sin then, is not a situation where men judge other men. It is merely a matter of those who were created accepting the authority of their Creator, God. Something BTW, that our courts and our politicians are for the most part, unwilling to do.

Same thing holds true for women who for convenience sake make the choice to abort their baby. Ironically in the case of abortion, arguing strenuously for the right to choose.

We men, are not to judge one another because, it is by God's standard that we will be judged. None the less, the Lord has called out sin clearly for what it is in Scripture, so that we may recognize it when we see it. But, Satan knows a good gimmick when he sees one, and there is one in particular that never grows old and never fails to work. It is the very same rationale he used to guide Eve into temptation, who then fell into sin seemingly within minutes of being tempted. Word twisting. Paraphrased Satan asked, "did God really mean that? You shall not surely die if you eat of it."

Today the enlightened liberal questions the character of God Himself. Questioning whether God has the right to judge men. I believe He does, and I believe He will. Meanwhile, we see the secular parallel of the Devil's default tool being employed by men daily. Politicians borrowing from Satan's play book, continually deny, distort and twist the meaning of language when it serves their purpose.

One of the core components of destroying a society is through political correctness. Instead of right and wrong, "tolerance and acceptance" is taught. That doesn't apply when it comes to Christians, of course. I'll be the first to say that the Church is not innocent and that I have had bad experiences in the Church. However, avoiding the Church because of the hypocrites would be like avoiding the gym because of fat people. Thus, there is no excuse for it.

I'm in no position to judge anybody. I sin every minute of every hour of every day, sometimes in thought and other times in action. I'm not a big fan of sermons, but one I watched recently from a pastor emphasized coming to Church with a mirror in your hand looking at yourself, not a magnifying glass looking at society. There is a major difference in the belief that a particular action constitutes a sin and actually looking down on somebody because they struggle with that particular sin. That, is what many fail to grasp. A friend from high school made a post on social media about homosexuality on the day that same-sex "marriage" was legalized. She was not ready to handle the onslaught from two or three "friends" that criticized her for being judgmental. She made another post apologizing shortly afterward.

Put succinctly, those on the LGBT movement, be it somebody who is LGBT or a "straight ally," are judging Christians in the same manner that they don't want to be judged. Shouting hate, bigotry, or intolerance will do nothing to advance your cause further than it already has been and I sense a heavy backlash coming toward this movement. There are those who do not really care one way or the other about this issue, but they are tired of seeing it forced down our throats by politicians, corporations, and "institutions of higher learning."

Jesus' death was not a peaceful one in His sleep at age 100. He was crucified on the cross at a young age. He wasn't crucified because of a message He promoted of tolerance and acceptance, He was crucified because He offended people by calling out sin for what it was/is. Thankfully, the Resurrection showed that He was able to overcome and that the work has been done.

[Image: http://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hpho...e=569EB065]

[Harry Rex Vonner]

Modern Jesus sounds like 99% of the preachers in the world today. As I have posted before, we are allowing the premeditated murder of millions of innocent babies each year and we have destroyed the sanctity of marriage and the preachers continue to tell us the story of Daniel in the lion's den or St. Paul on the road to Damascus, or some other story that we have all heard several hundred times through the years.

Now, for those of you who will post that his/her/ their preacher spoke against abortion and/or same sex marriages, let me say that words are cheap and, in reality, produce nothing. They may "fire up" some of the congregation for a few minutes but thoughts are soon returned to Sunday dinner and the football games and the fire has been extinguished.

To be blunt, we quite possibly need more Scott Roeders and less Joel Osteens.

[Memo Luna]

Modern Jesus sounds like 99% of the preachers in the world today. As I have posted before, we are allowing the premeditated murder of millions of innocent babies each year and we have destroyed the sanctity of marriage and the preachers continue to tell us the story of Daniel in the lion's den or St. Paul on the road to Damascus, or some other story that we have all heard several hundred times through the years.

Now, for those of you who will post that his/her/ their preacher spoke against abortion and/or same sex marriages, let me say that words are cheap and, in reality, produce nothing. They may "fire up" some of the congregation for a few minutes but thoughts are soon returned to Sunday dinner and the football games and the fire has been extinguished.

To be blunt, we quite possibly need more Scott Roeders and less Joel Osteens.

Blunt? Yes. True? Definitely. A fair indictment of modern Christians? Absolutely.