A brief Introduction:While studying to be a pastor in college I abandoned my faith. In fact, I abandoned everything I thought I believed and rebuilt.
To my own surprise at the time, I found that Christianity was much stronger than I had thought. As I rebuilt my belief system, I realized that there needed to be people out there responding to the questions people have. I had them myself. So, while not continuing on to be a pastor, I have focused on educating people about what Christianity is all about and responding to the various charges and accusations made against it.
There are some obvious challenges to being successful in that capacity, but a big part of it consists not in arguing with atheists and skeptics, but rather in providing Christians with accurate information in the first place to prevent them from leaving the faith in the first place.
Questioning is a very normal and natural part of growing up, and I am convinced that it is not wrong to ask questions of God at any age. God doesn't strike people down. On the other hand, if people are going to reject Christianity, it is my aim to at least make sure they reject the real Christianity and not a false view of it. Also, much heartache can be avoided by educating Christians properly to begin with. My experience has helped me... but it was unnecessary.
Paul said that some plant, some water, and others reap the increase. My job is to go out into the land and move rocks- or break them if necessary- till the land, and struggle through knee deep fertilizer... all in the effort to allow those who come later to plant, water, and reap the harvest. I look forward to the prospects of either serving you as someone who needs to haul rocks out of the field, or as someone who can look at the field, detect problems, and help farmers more effectively plant, water, and reap.
Here Begins my Blog
This ministry needs your financial support! Donate now!
Over the last week or so I have had several opportunities to tell people about Barack Obama’s opposition to the Born Alive legislation in Illinois which would have required medical assistance to babies that survive the abortion procedure. Without exception, each of these individuals was unaware of the issue.
It would be one thing if people were aware of this but dismissed it or factored it in- or even the unthinkable: they approve of it- but to not even be aware? This I think is the fault of the ‘average American’ and his level of investigation into candidates and claims and the Media’s failure to do its duties impartially and exhaustively.
In the cases I mentioned there was one where they proposed that perhaps it was rare and perhaps Obama was right that existing law covered it so why go the additional step?
I turned up this ‘sting’ operation on Planned Parenthood where the nurse admits that survivals continue to happen and whatever ‘existing law’ might ‘cover’ such situations, it isn’t being enforced. Decide for yourself if you want a president who will oppose such legislation with such clear moral weight behind it.
Here was my source article for more background: http://www.lifenews.com/nat4515.html
And here is the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnlHNbAh6xY
Because I believe that the unborn are really persons abortion is a huge issue for me. I am generally sympathetic to some pro-choicers… some of them lack the imagination required to treat as a human person something that doesn’t quite look like a human. I still vehemently reject the position but I’m sympathetic. But what Obama is advocating removes any hope for sympathy. Obama is in support of partial birth abortion and voted against legislation that would have required giving medical treatment to a child that survives the abortion.
If you’d like to see what happens in partial birth abortion click here. Jill Stanek was a key person in bringing to light the fact that in Illinois, children that survive the abortion are put into a ‘utility’ room until finally they die. Now she has documented Obama’s resistance to the ‘born alive’ while he was involved in Illinois politics, here. Though Obama decried this all as a ‘lie’ he has offered shifting reasons for why he did what he did (so I guess it wasn’t a lie, after all!) and Stanek documents those, here.
Yes, let me respond to this. If it sounds incredible that I would vote to withhold lifesaving treatment from an infant, that’s because it’s not true. The — here are the facts.
…
With respect to partial-birth abortion, I am completely supportive of a ban on late-term abortions, partial-birth or otherwise, as long as there’s an exception for the mother’s health and life, and this did not contain that exception.
And I attempted, as many have in the past, of including that so that it is constitutional. And that was rejected, and that’s why I voted present, because I’m willing to support a ban on late-term abortions as long as we have that exception.
It is true. Obama expects that no one will notice the sleight of hand here. It is true, he did vote against that legislation, but today the reason is because the legislation was redundant. It is true. I guess it all depends on what the definition of is, is. Only Obama makes it sound better.
Barack, if you think you’ve got good reasons for what you did then be man enough to admit you did them when you turn around and give the reasons for why you did them.
It is difficult to imagine a scenario in which a woman’s life is in such jeapordy where it is safer to deliver the child all the way up to the head where you jam a knife into the skull and suck out the brains then to deliver the child altogether, at the very least by c-section.
And naturally, if the child is already out of the womb then the ‘life of the mother’ is no longer in danger, right? Therefore the question of the health of the mother ought to be moot. According to some versions of Obama’s opposition to the ‘born alive’ legislation (see link to list above), Obama didn’t want to ascribe personhood status to these children because it could jeapordize Roe vs. Wade.
I’m sorry, but I don’t want a man for president who is willing to write off for dead people who are clearly people- clearly to everyone- in furtherance of an agenda, and then lies about it. I can’t imagine how such a person sleeps at night. I definitely don’t want him sleeping in the White House.
PS, it is entirely debateable that Obama really would support bans of any kind. He seems to prefer removing them altogether for any reason whatsoever. This article outlines Obama’s views, including some statements to Planned Parenthood, which you just know are going to be rich.
Many historians have attested to a phenomenon called the "cycle of nations." All nations go through a cycle of various levels of freedoms. Most nations start out in bondage, which they use to propel themselves into faith, then courage, then liberty, then abundance. After a time of abundance, they enter into stages of selfishness, then complacency, […]
We've heard a lot of talk about change in this country over the past couple of years. But the only lasting and positive change that can occur is the spiritual revival that needs to begin in the hearts of Christian believers across this great nation. Our country was founded upon a complete dependence upon God, not government. Our liberties were based on […]
"In a things showing thyself a pattern of good works: in doctrine showing incorruptness, gravity, sincerity, sound speech, that cannot be condemned; that he that is of the contrary part may be ashamed, having no evil thing to say of you." Titus 2:7,8 […]
What happens to a tree when its root system is destroyed? The tree can no longer access the nutrients it needs, and it begins to weaken. The leaves wilt, the branches droop, the fruit ceases to grow. Eventually, the tree dies. America was formed and developed from biblical roots, but today our leaders chop away at our foundation. They deny the core of our pu […]
