You all know how I would vote. So lets see how many like me are out there.

The catholics say that Mary was a virgin all her life but the bible teaches that Jesus had brothers and sisters. This is their doctrine, yet it is WRONG. It does not line up with God's word. The Jehovah's Witnesses say that Jesus is not God. This does not line up with the word. The baptists feel that you can't lose your salvation, ever. This is in contradiction to the word of God. So, you see, there are many people who feel they have it right, and do not. I am sure there are things that I feel strongly about, but may have wrong. But at least I admit that if it doesn't line up with God's word, I'm wrong about it.

Now, what have I said about homosexuals, abortions or any other issue we are posting about here that is not correct as far as the bible is concerned? I will tackle them one issue at a time and show you through God's word that he is against them.

Again, I preface this by saying I am not supporting the catholic church but presenting this as yet another example of different interpretations of biblical writings:

The perpetual virginity of Mary has always been reconciled with the biblical references to Christ’s brethren through a proper understanding of the meaning of the term "brethren." The understanding that the brethren of the Lord were Jesus’ stepbrothers (children of Joseph) rather than half-brothers (children of Mary) was the most common one until the time of Jerome (fourth century). It was Jerome who introduced the possibility that Christ’s brethren were actually his cousins, since in Jewish idiom cousins were also referred to as "brethren." The Catholic Church allows the faithful to hold either view, since both are compatible with the reality of Mary’s perpetual virginity.

If you were to sit down with catholic clergy they would tell you that YOUR interpretation is wrong and their is right. This is the point many of us have been making.

You BELIEVE your interpretation is right. Other religious denominations believe THEIR interpretation is right.

And then there are those (like me) who don't care what the bible says with regard to how our government should govern. That is the real issue here and if you were to poll the american public, by a large majority, they do not want one particular biblical interpretation to be the basis for our country's laws.

I understand that people interpret verses to mean different things. But you can not just take a verse out of the bible and make your own 'doctrine' out of it. You must take the bible as a whole and consider all the verses that speak of the death penalty and God's judgement and his just charachter and his laws and reasonings to form a biblical truth about an issue.

I have read the other verses, and I am still against the death penalty.

Again, I preface this by saying I am not supporting the catholic church but presenting this as yet another example of different interpretations of biblical writings:

The perpetual virginity of Mary has always been reconciled with the biblical references to Christ’s brethren through a proper understanding of the meaning of the term "brethren." The understanding that the brethren of the Lord were Jesus’ stepbrothers (children of Joseph) rather than half-brothers (children of Mary) was the most common one until the time of Jerome (fourth century). It was Jerome who introduced the possibility that Christ’s brethren were actually his cousins, since in Jewish idiom cousins were also referred to as "brethren." The Catholic Church allows the faithful to hold either view, since both are compatible with the reality of Mary’s perpetual virginity.

If you were to sit down with catholic clergy they would tell you that YOUR interpretation is wrong and their is right. This is the point many of us have been making.

You BELIEVE your interpretation is right. Other religious denominations believe THEIR interpretation is right.

And then there are those (like me) who don't care what the bible says with regard to how our government should govern. That is the real issue here and if you were to poll the american public, by a large majority, they do not want one particular biblical interpretation to be the basis for our country's laws.

As I have said before, you need to take the bible as a whole, not just pull one scripture out and use it to make a doctrine on. There are many scriptures that teach that: Josph 'knew' not Mary until she had given birth to Jesus. This means that he didn't have any sex with her until after Jesus was born. So, she was a virgin at the conception of Jesus, but after he was born, she went on to have a normal marriage with Joseph which included sex. So, you can see that if you take ALL of the scriptures in the bible that relate to the subject of Mary's virginity, you get a truth that can not be denied. If you built your denomination on something other than that truth, you will fight to the death to defend it, even if it's wrong because you don't want to lose your denomination to untruths.

BTW, who cares if she was sexless all her life or not? It's irrelivent. It matters not. The point I am trying to make is that you must use all of the bible to determine a position on an issue, not just pull one verse out to condone something you want to make acceptable.

People need to have a foundation to go to when making decisions about laws. If you don't have one, then the laws will be whatever seems right in the eyes of the ones writing them. This should not be, for what you deem acceptable, I may not and vice versa. Especially when it comes to issues like abortion, b/c those who are against it feel that it is murdering a human being and no one should have the right to do that. If the law being considered were something of insignificance, no big deal, but this law is very significant. Liberals want conservatives to not only allow such atrocities to occur, but to pay for them through their tax dollars as well. How arrogant! Is it not enough that the law favors your 'choice'? You must also demand that those who oppose your 'choice' pay for it as well? How sick and demented is that?!

I have read the other verses, and I am still against the death penalty.

I have no desire to sway your belief on the death penalty. Believe as you want.

Liberals want conservatives to not only allow such atrocities to occur, but to pay for them through their tax dollars as well. How arrogant! Is it not enough that the law favors your 'choice'? You must also demand that those who oppose your 'choice' pay for it as well? How sick and demented is that?!

This is not true. Since the Hyde amendment of 1977, no tax money can be used for abortion. And I am not aware of any bill being pushed in congress to do otherwise.

Liberals want conservatives to not only allow such atrocities to occur, but to pay for them through their tax dollars as well. How arrogant! Is it not enough that the law favors your 'choice'? You must also demand that those who oppose your 'choice' pay for it as well? How sick and demented is that?!

This is not true. Since the Hyde amendment of 1977, no tax money can be used for abortion. And I am not aware of any bill being pushed in congress to do otherwise.

are you going to tell me that this was not in the HC bill before it got shut down? Why do you think so many were opposed to what the dems were proposing? Or at least a part of what they opposed.

are you going to tell me that this was not in the HC bill before it got shut down? Why do you think so many were opposed to what the dems were proposing? Or at least a part of what they opposed.

Yes, that is EXACTLY what I am telling you. The Stupak (democrat) amendment in the house and what Ben Nelson (democrat) in the Senate got was language to further restrict tax dollars for abortion beyond the Hyde amendment. The rest of the democrats in both houses believed that the Hyde amendment was good enough.

The reason republicans didn't support the healthcare bill was because they oppose Obaman's agenda and want him to fail. It had NOTHING to do with abortion. Additionally, those few hold outs (democrats) in the senate opposed it for different reasons - lieberman, landrieu didn't want the public option and nelson wanted more restrictions on being able to buy a plan that covered abortions.

Aside from these few DINOS any other democrat that opposed what was being offered was opposed to it because it didn't have a public option, it was too restrictive on abortion, and didn't go far enough to rein in the greedy health insurance industry. In other words, it wasn't liberal enough.

Edited January 21, 201016 yr by Cleo's Mom

patty: "No. It doesn't matter what they believe or what their church doctrine puts forth, if it doesn't line up with the word of God, it is wrong."

But that is the whole point. Their beliefs and doctrine align totally with the word of God.

"arrogant" the word du jour, eh?

"arrogant" the word du jour, eh?

TY!

Reagan once said: "Many of you have been attacked for being single issue activists or single issue voters. But I ask: What single issue could be of greater significance?"

Agreed. The right to life is the first and most fundamental of rights, without which other rights are impossible. If you are unsure when life begins, consider Reagan's words: "If there's even a question about when life begins, isn't it our duty to ere on the side of life?"

The death penalty is not for ALL prisoners. Only those who bring about death.

Then you would support the death penalty for Scott Roeder, the man who (premeditatively) shot and killed that doctor who performed abortions.

Woohoo I was the 666th voter in the poll- is that saying something? :cursing:

I am pro-choice, and religion has NOTHING to do with it. I'm not a religious person anyway. I just think that it's a woman's choice. Now, I do have a disclaimer here- unless there's something really wrong, I don't think it should be done later than the first trimester. I don't know why, exactly, just my feeling.

I also don't know what I would choose to do if I found myself pregnant. My BF and I are not ready for kids any time soon. I really wouldn't ever know unless I crossed that bridge, which I hope never to!

There is no question in my mind that patty would vote for the death penalty for Scott Roeder if she were on his trial jury. How could she think any differently?

Or is it like Iraq, where if the right wing extremists believe that a country might be a threat, they deserve to die and in God's eyes, bombing Iraq and killing people was the right thing to do. So if you put it in these terms, maybe patty will think that Scott Roeder is some kind of hero? Killing people to save other people - God's for it, eh?

Love your cartoon, Wendy!