MOCpages : Share your LEGO® creations
LEGO models my own creation MOCpages toys shop The Christian Group
Welcome to the world's greatest LEGO fan community!
Explore cool creations, share your own, and have lots of fun together.  ~  It's all free!
Conversation »
Abortion (I know a little CFOLish)
Join to comment
On abortion, the fact of the matter is simply this:

If you choose abortion, many unborn children will die. If you want no abortion, many young mothers will die in childbirth. Either way, people are going to die. You just have to choose who.

And that's the truth. And remember folks, as Areesta always says, the truth hurts. The more true it is, the more it hurts. And Areesta is actually very Christian I hear...
Permalink
| December 20, 2009, 8:51 pm
Quoting Mario Kart Master
Wow Blake. How long did you take to write that? That's like the longest comment on MOCpages I've seen! Anyways, abortion is murder and now they, (we OTHER Americans) do it everyday! I found out last Sunday that in my Pastor's testiomny, (he died on the 9th) that was read by his wife, that Kristin was put up for abortion. She didn't even know! If that happened, then I would be different today. (She and her dad changed my life. They really did.) That came into my mind when I saw this topic. (To learn about Kristin and I, look in the Having trouble with your life topic. You'll find interesting stuff!)

Yeah I previewed every topic to get caught up. Man, I am sorry. I know it is tough to lose a friend. By God's Grace you and Kristen will get serious and move on to marriage but until then just trust in him.
Permalink
| December 21, 2009, 12:42 pm
Quoting Blake Baer
There are cases where mothers would have died if it hadn't been for abortion. True. Abortion has brought along a whole new kind of culture. A culture where a family could completely eliminate a human being without the slightest sign of remorse. There are cases of confirmed retardation of the unborn. I have a cousin who is a retard. The Family did have the chance to "abort" but they chose not to because a unborn baby is still a baby!!! As far as a mother goes... sigh... surprising to hear this but if God wants her to die then she dies. But as far as the baby goes God wants that baby to live and grow. He does take unborn lives for God's own reasons but to take one by our own hands is a SIN!!!!

I don't want this topic to be a war-zone but a debate podium.









How do you know that's what God wants? Did you ask him? Did you talk to him?

I do all the time.

And as far as this whole deal is concerned, he often wants the baby to live, and also often wants it to die to send the mother a message(he likes to send "messages"). And he usually just kills the baby himself when he wants that to happen, you know, with miscarriages and all that. I don't know if I'm with him on this one(sorry, God...), I often believe the mother hasn't deserved it, but it seems like too often that God punishes people for no good reason(again, sorry God, IF this is a misunderstanding...).

When I have a bit more time and when my brain isn't fried from finals at school, I'll explain my bizarre beliefs in detail. For now, I have to go of and manage my Imperial Federation of Prusso-Egypt. As always.(its flag is my buddy icon)
Permalink
| December 21, 2009, 1:32 pm
Quoting Markster 1701
Well, the debate about abortion is a very complex topic. I personally beleive that abortion is not right because god has given a gift to the parents. If Mary had an abortion the world would be a very different place. But I believe that for the families who are poor, it would be OK. Because if they do not Health insurance, having a baby will cause them huge financial trouble. And if they are not christians, how can we blame them, for they do not know what god wants them to do. Of course, it is God's choice for the baby to live or die. And arguements you could have are:
1. Food Stamps
2. Why have the kid in the 1st place?(won't go into the details)
These are good arguements but it takes a long time to apply for food stamps, and the parents could've wanted a baby during healthy economic times. Please connsider these pionts and I will be following and participating in this debate in the future.


So familys who are poor are allowed to sin? We are all equal in God's eyes. Jew and Gentile, Slave and Free, Male and Female there is no dfferense.
Permalink
| December 22, 2009, 9:04 am
Quoting Field Marshal Cliffe
How do you know that's what God wants? Did you ask him? Did you talk to him?

I do all the time.

And as far as this whole deal is concerned, he often wants the baby to live, and also often wants it to die to send the mother a message(he likes to send "messages"). And he usually just kills the baby himself when he wants that to happen, you know, with miscarriages and all that. I don't know if I'm with him on this one(sorry, God...), I often believe the mother hasn't deserved it, but it seems like too often that God punishes people for no good reason(again, sorry God, IF this is a misunderstanding...).

When I have a bit more time and when my brain isn't fried from finals at school, I'll explain my bizarre beliefs in detail. For now, I have to go of and manage my Imperial Federation of Prusso-Egypt. As always.(its flag is my buddy icon)

As far as talking with God I do every day! And for discerning his will I just sit down and read. I don't know God's master plan and I don't pretend to. I just know God's commands and laws by which we must live. If we follow them we shall earn God's favor. But it is more than that. The Pharisees in the Bible followed the law to the extreme and God called them snakes!!! Foxes!!!! Tombs!!!!! In James it says "Faith by itself if it is not accompanied by Righteousness is dead. In the same way Observing the law with no faith is also dead." So just look in the Bible to find your answers.
Permalink
| December 22, 2009, 9:10 am
Quoting Mario Kart Master
Preach on my friend. Yeah. I believe the same things as you. God will ALWAYS watch over us and choose who to take to Heaven. That is a Christian or a new-born. But we humans are forgetting God and causing the world to perish. Cause it all started with Satan in the garden. BTW, when I was at Wal-mart last week, I saw a guy dressed in all black. Then I saw he was wearing the star of Satan! His friend was also wearing one. I just ignoed them.

I don't think we are forgetting about God I think we are just ignoring Him.
Permalink
| December 22, 2009, 11:32 am
I dont think abortion is right because it is basically considered murder... but y not just have the baby and just set it up for adoption..
Permalink
| December 22, 2009, 11:45 am
Quoting Blake Baer
As far as talking with God I do every day! And for discerning his will I just sit down and read. I don't know God's master plan and I don't pretend to. I just know God's commands and laws by which we must live. If we follow them we shall earn God's favor. But it is more than that. The Pharisees in the Bible followed the law to the extreme and God called them snakes!!! Foxes!!!! Tombs!!!!! In James it says "Faith by itself if it is not accompanied by Righteousness is dead. In the same way Observing the law with no faith is also dead." So just look in the Bible to find your answers.

I have been looking in the Bible to analyze it, and it is just as I imagined from what pieces I have heard from it in church. Very inconsistent, very confusing, and often contradictory. I hope to someday be able to sort passages in the Bible that are similar and analyze them and their message to the reader further.

As for talking to God, do you talk to him figuratively, or literally? I talk to him literally, although he speaks in a certain "language." This language is pretty much the order and way things occur in the world at a specific time(the time in which he is "speaking"). It took me a long time(about three years) to decipher his language. And I did it using the scientific method =D I also proved his existence to myself using the scientific method.
Permalink
| December 22, 2009, 1:48 pm
Quoting Blake Baer
I don't think we are forgetting about God I think we are just ignoring Him.

I hate it when I do that. Sometimes when I start forgetting to thank him for things he "smacks me in the face." LOL. Usually that involves something happening that I don't like. Then I remember. Sometimes, I like His nice sense of discipline.
Permalink
| December 22, 2009, 1:56 pm
Quoting Field Marshal Cliffe
I have been looking in the Bible to analyze it, and it is just as I imagined from what pieces I have heard from it in church. Very inconsistent, very confusing, and often contradictory. I hope to someday be able to sort passages in the Bible that are similar and analyze them and their message to the reader further.

As for talking to God, do you talk to him figuratively, or literally? I talk to him literally, although he speaks in a certain "language." This language is pretty much the order and way things occur in the world at a specific time(the time in which he is "speaking"). It took me a long time(about three years) to decipher his language. And I did it using the scientific method =D I also proved his existence to myself using the scientific method.

Hahaha yes the Bible is a bit confusing isn't it? I don't know about contradictory...
Permalink
| December 22, 2009, 7:53 pm
 Group admin 
Abortion is wrong. period.
Permalink
| December 23, 2009, 10:34 am
 Group admin 
very, very well said. Some of our younger friends in this group may not be able to handle some of these things, but it is all very real and well said. Oh and when it asks me wether to approve/disaprove that post, I will approve.
Permalink
| December 23, 2009, 3:44 pm
Quoting Walter "Sand Raider" Bryan
very, very well said. Some of our younger friends in this group may not be able to handle some of these things, but it is all very real and well said. Oh and when it asks me wether to approve/disaprove that post, I will approve.

Approve of abortion?
Permalink
| December 24, 2009, 10:17 am
 Group admin 
HECK NO! I was saying how I liked how Architect said how he hates it. His reason was well said.
Permalink
| December 24, 2009, 10:52 am
Quoting Walter "Sand Raider" Bryan
HECK NO! I was saying how I liked how Architect said how he hates it. His reason was well said.

Alright wasn't sure.
Permalink
| December 26, 2009, 8:42 am
Quoting Architect of Vonthako
Wow, now here’s a “can of worms” topic. Anyway, here are my views:

The Bible tells us murder is wrong.
Abortion = Murder of the unborn
Abortion = Wrong

Now to refute some of the common arguments for abortion:

1) Woman’s choice
Goes something like: “The woman should have a choice whether or not to carry the child and care for it. If she does not want the burden, she shouldn’t have to bear it”

My reply: In many of these cases it was the woman’s choice to spread her legs for some guy that would get her pregnant; so now she’s just running from the consequences. If she doesn’t want to handle the responsibility, maybe she should reexamine her promiscuous lifestyle, rather than committing child sacrifice to the “god” of self-centered convenience. Ever heard of adoption?

To put things in perspective: If I ordered a case of beer at a store, and instead of paying for it, shot the store owner.

2) Health Risk
Goes something like: “What if there’s a major risk that the mother could die during childbirth?”

Now here’s a tricky one.
My reply: This is nothing new. In fact, with modern medical technology, births are safer now than ever before. I’m sure some of my female ancestors died during childbirth. If they had chosen to abort, I wouldn’t be here today (and neither would the rest of my family).

Often deciding in a situation like this is done on a case-by-case basis. I’m not making a blanket statement on this one. Also, women have died from the abortion procedures too.

3) What about rape?
Goes something like: “If the woman is raped and carries the child, she will likely hate it”

My reply:
1] This is not always the case
2] The sin of rape is not made right by the sin of murder
3] Adoption is still an option
4] If my Slavonic ancestors had aborted all the rape-induced pregnancies from their Mongolian conquerors, I wouldn’t be here today.

4) Economic reasons
Goes something like: “What if the woman/family can’t afford the child?”

My reply:
1] A 3-pack of Trojan condoms costs around $4. That’s cheaper than raising a child OR getting an abortion.
2] Adoption is still an option
3] When my mom was pregnant with me back in Soviet Russia, she was living in borderline poverty (oh, the paradise that Communism brings). Many of her friends advised her to have an abortion, telling her she could not afford the child. If she had listened to them, I would not be here today.


Legally-justified murder is a slippery slope. If it is OK to slaughter the defenseless unborn, then who’s next on the hit list? Already there is a big issue regarding euthanasia (killing old people). Who’s next?
The handicapped?
The homeless?
The minorities?
Those that don’t pledge their souls to a certain set of politics?

Goodbye human compassion; Sieg Heil, Führer!

AMEN, Brother.
Permalink
| December 27, 2009, 5:28 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Architect of Vonthako

Thank you! Maybe I should become a speech-writer for our next president...

yeah good idea. Maybe he will actually remember your speeches instead of using a teleprompter...
Permalink
| December 29, 2009, 7:52 pm
 Group admin 
yeah anytime! If there are anymistakes, it is because my family got a new computer. The keyboard feels so wierd...
Permalink
| January 6, 2010, 4:01 pm
 Group admin 
I'm back again! It's been a while. I'll try too post my UNSC forces V2 today or soon.
Permalink
| February 6, 2010, 9:15 am
On the thought of abortion I say that its not the mothers decision, she has a different genetic code from the baby, therefore the baby is not a part of her body. Though I'm against abortion, that doesn't mean I approve of people killing abortion doctors.
Permalink
| March 27, 2011, 3:09 pm
Quoting Matthew Cox
On the thought of abortion I say that its not the mothers decision, she has a different genetic code from the baby, therefore the baby is not a part of her body. Though I'm against abortion, that doesn't mean I approve of people killing abortion doctors.

So by your definition being attached by skin is not being part of another body?
Permalink
| March 30, 2011, 7:26 pm
Quoting Matthew Novosad
So by your definition being attached by skin is not being part of another body?

my definition says that even though they are attached they are different people.

Permalink
| March 31, 2011, 4:29 pm
Quoting Matthew Cox
my definition says that even though they are attached they are different people.

Not until it comes out of the womb.
Permalink
| March 31, 2011, 4:32 pm
Quoting Field Marshal Cliffe
On abortion, the fact of the matter is simply this:

If you choose abortion, many unborn children will die. If you want no abortion, many young mothers will die in childbirth. Either way, people are going to die. You just have to choose who.

And that's the truth. And remember folks, as Areesta always says, the truth hurts. The more true it is, the more it hurts. And Areesta is actually very Christian I hear...


As to your comment about the risk of the mother's death... in situations where it is likely that a birth or even a c-section would kill both mother and child, I would allow an abortion if it significantly increased the mother's chances of survival. Basically, I approve of abortions only for medical reasons, and then only in very specific circumstances. Any sort of voluntary abortion is, to me, an act of murder.
Permalink
| March 31, 2011, 4:53 pm
Also, babies aren't "alive" until they are out of the womb. They are basically just globs of flesh.
Permalink
| March 31, 2011, 4:56 pm
Quoting Architect of Vonthako
Legally-justified murder is a slippery slope. If it is OK to slaughter the defenseless unborn, then who’s next on the hit list? Already there is a big issue regarding euthanasia (killing old people). Who’s next?
The handicapped?
The homeless?
The minorities?
Those that don’t pledge their souls to a certain set of politics?

Goodbye human compassion; Sieg Heil, Führer!

Ah, yes, the wonderful gentleman who had people suffering from birth defects slaughtered like pigs, with the justification that sufferers of Down Syndrome and similarly disabled people were a heavy financial burden on the community, the economy, and the nation.

Some people are born in a way such that they rely on the support of others until the very day of their death. Should we just kill them because they're inconvenient, justifying their murders by claiming that their defects make them less human than the rest of us?
Permalink
| March 31, 2011, 5:05 pm
Quoting Matthew Novosad
Also, babies aren't "alive" until they are out of the womb. They are basically just globs of flesh.

This is the biological definition of life, along with a comment on how well a fetus fulfills each category:

"A living organism is a system that fulfills most or all of the following criteria:
"1.Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature."
Now, a fetus does require the mother to support it in order to survive. However, it also relies on its own internal mechanisms working properly... its heart must start beating within a month, for example.

"2.Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life."
Fetuses are composed of cells. Enough said.

"3.Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life."
Checkmark. A fetus relies on its mother to provide sustenance, but has its own internal metabolism for distributing and using that sustenance.

"4.Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter."
Fetuses grow. Once again, enough said.

"5.Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present."
Most of the external factors come from the mother. A good example is drug addictions... if the mother is depedent on a substance, the fetus will become dependent on it as well.

"6.Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism) and by chemotaxis."
One good example is that fetuses will kick in the womb, commonly in response to the mother lying still for a long period of time.

"7.Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either from a single parent organism, or from two parent organisms."
OK, a fetus isn't going to go out and have a child of its own, but neither is a four-year-old kid, which I'm hoping we'd all consider to be a living human. Both fetus and four-year-old will, in time, gain this capability, and that should be sufficient to fulfill this category.

So, in short, a fetus fulfills all of the categories. What is it, then, that makes them unalive? The fact that they rely on another to support them? By that definition, none of us are truly alive until several years after being born!
Permalink
| March 31, 2011, 5:32 pm
Quoting Matthew Cox
On the thought of abortion I say that its not the mothers decision, she has a different genetic code from the baby, therefore the baby is not a part of her body.

Well-spotted! I had overlooked that specific argument... but it's a very good one. Every single cell in the mother's body (barring mutations such as cancer) will have the same genetic code, wheras the baby will have its own genetic code throughout its own body.
Permalink
| March 31, 2011, 5:42 pm
Quoting W. Mark
This is the biological definition of life, along with a comment on how well a fetus fulfills each category:

"A living organism is a system that fulfills most or all of the following criteria:
"1.Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature."
Now, a fetus does require the mother to support it in order to survive. However, it also relies on its own internal mechanisms working properly... its heart must start beating within a month, for example.

"2.Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life."
Fetuses are composed of cells. Enough said.

"3.Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life."
Checkmark. A fetus relies on its mother to provide sustenance, but has its own internal metabolism for distributing and using that sustenance.

"4.Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter."
Fetuses grow. Once again, enough said.

"5.Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present."
Most of the external factors come from the mother. A good example is drug addictions... if the mother is depedent on a substance, the fetus will become dependent on it as well.

"6.Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism) and by chemotaxis."
One good example is that fetuses will kick in the womb, commonly in response to the mother lying still for a long period of time.

"7.Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either from a single parent organism, or from two parent organisms."
OK, a fetus isn't going to go out and have a child of its own, but neither is a four-year-old kid, which I'm hoping we'd all consider to be a living human. Both fetus and four-year-old will, in time, gain this capability, and that should be sufficient to fulfill this category.

So, in short, a fetus fulfills all of the categories. What is it, then, that makes them unalive? The fact that they rely on another to support them? By that definition, none of us are truly alive until several years after being born!

You definitly have a valid point. I think we should just leave it here before things get ugly. I have my opinions and you have yours :)
Permalink
| March 31, 2011, 5:42 pm
Quoting Matthew Novosad
You definitly have a valid point. I think we should just leave it here before things get ugly. I have my opinions and you have yours :)

We do seem to have to agree to disagree a lot. That's one of the reasons I modded you back at the purist group, actually... I figured that having someone like you helping run things would help keep the group tolerant of other views, and it has. Thanks for helping, and thanks for debating politely!
Permalink
| March 31, 2011, 6:42 pm
Quoting W. Mark
We do seem to have to agree to disagree a lot. That's one of the reasons I modded you back at the purist group, actually... I figured that having someone like you helping run things would help keep the group tolerant of other views, and it has. Thanks for helping, and thanks for debating politely!

No problem, we wouldn't want this turning into another CFOL now would we?
Permalink
| March 31, 2011, 6:55 pm
Quoting Matthew Novosad
No problem, we wouldn't want this turning into another CFOL now would we?

Nope. A few brief debates are fine with me... constant arguments would make this group completely redundant.
Permalink
| March 31, 2011, 7:01 pm
Quoting W. Mark
Nope. A few brief debates are fine with me... constant arguments would make this group completely redundant.

It could have if it was just something like "I'm right because of A B and C"
"NO I'm right because of A B and C"

It could then turn into a flamewar, which we would not want.
Permalink
| March 31, 2011, 7:05 pm
Quoting Matthew Novosad
It could have if it was just something like "I'm right because of A B and C"
"NO I'm right because of A B and C"

It could then turn into a flamewar, which we would not want.

Except for me, because I'd win.

(that's sarcasm, for those of you who have trouble detecting it over the internet).
Permalink
| March 31, 2011, 7:10 pm
Quoting W. Mark
Except for me, because I'd win.

(that's sarcasm, for those of you who have trouble detecting it over the internet).

Haha. Sarcasm is the best. My history teacher is REALLY sarcastic. It's the best.
Permalink
| March 31, 2011, 7:26 pm
Quoting Matthew Novosad
Haha. Sarcasm is the best. My history teacher is REALLY sarcastic. It's the best.

Growing up I had a teacher that had some sort of sarcasm defeciency... he couldn't detect it at all, and had a nasty habit of taking everything seriously. That got me and some of my friends in trouble a few times.
Permalink
| March 31, 2011, 7:32 pm
Quoting W. Mark
Growing up I had a teacher that had some sort of sarcasm defeciency... he couldn't detect it at all, and had a nasty habit of taking everything seriously. That got me and some of my friends in trouble a few times.

Dang. My teacher prefers to talk about people in front of their faces instead of behind their backs. Lulz ensue. She's a good teacher though. My history Thesis paper for her is due tomorrow. Gotta finish it.
Permalink
| March 31, 2011, 7:35 pm
Quoting Matthew Novosad
Dang. My teacher prefers to talk about people in front of their faces instead of behind their backs. Lulz ensue. She's a good teacher though. My history Thesis paper for her is due tomorrow. Gotta finish it.

Good luck! Hope you get a good grade.
Permalink
| March 31, 2011, 7:38 pm
Quoting W. Mark
Good luck! Hope you get a good grade.

Thanks. Just putting the finishing touches on it :D.
Permalink
| March 31, 2011, 7:42 pm
Ok, I skipped most of the comments here, so I will just state how I view all of this.

Abortion is a sin.

Now I will support my beliefs.

Abortion is a sin for two reasons.
Abortion is murder, and it does not bring glory to God.

The first reason that abortion is a sin is because it is murder. Killing a person for reasons other than self-defense is murder. People try justifying this saying that the unborn one is not a person yet, but if God wanted the baby there then it is a person. Murder is a sin.

The second reason is because abortion is sin is because it does not bring glory to Him. Murder does not bring glory to God. All of life was meant to bring glory to him, and if it doesn't it is not right.
Also we do not have the right to decide if the unborn should live or not, and doing so is against God. Anything against God is SIN! Sin doesn't bring glory to God.

The reason sin is so wrong is that it goes against a holy God. And since God is holy he must punish it. The only way to escape God's wrath is to accept his Son Jesus as the only one who can save you.

Abortion is wrong for two reasons.
Permalink
| May 12, 2011, 10:01 am
Quoting Matthew Novosad
Also, babies aren't "alive" until they are out of the womb. They are basically just globs of flesh.



“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations."

Jeremiah 1:5
Permalink
| May 21, 2011, 5:56 pm
Quoting Legofreak2444 ~


“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations."

Jeremiah 1:5

That was written in the bible. Which could have been written by drunks.
Permalink
| May 21, 2011, 6:07 pm
Quoting Matthew Novosad
That was written in the bible. Which could have been written by drunks.


Why should we trust your word over the bible?
Permalink
| May 21, 2011, 6:09 pm
Quoting Legofreak2444 ~

Why should we trust your word over the bible?

Why should we trust a bunch of ancient people to modern?
Permalink
| May 21, 2011, 6:12 pm
Quoting Aidan Moon
Are you coming into this group to insult our faith and our book? That doesn't seem like polite debate.

I've been in this group for months now.

It's not an insult. An insult would be something much different. It's one of the reasons I take the bible as a metaphor, not literally. It could have been written by drunks. You just don't know.
Permalink
| May 21, 2011, 6:14 pm
Quoting Matthew Novosad
Why should we trust a bunch of ancient people to modern?


Why not? Why would there be any difference?
Permalink
| May 21, 2011, 6:14 pm
Quoting Matthew Novosad
I've been in this group for months now.

It's not an insult. An insult would be something much different. It's one of the reasons I take the bible as a metaphor, not literally. It could have been written by drunks. You just don't know.


How do we know you're not 'Drunk' right now?
Permalink
| May 21, 2011, 6:16 pm
Quoting Legofreak2444 ~

Why not? Why would there be any difference?

Yes. There would be. Modern understanding of the world for starters. We have science incomparable to the ancients.

Quoting Aidan Moon
It's not "a bunch of ancient people" but God speaking through them.

They have special places for those kinds of people. They are called "Asylums".
Permalink
| May 21, 2011, 6:18 pm
Quoting Legofreak2444 ~

How do we know you're not 'Drunk' right now?

Easy, I'm underage. I'm at home, with no alcohol around me, nor drugs.

I would totally be drunk around my mother and when going to a play /rolls eyes.
Permalink
| May 21, 2011, 6:22 pm
Quoting Aidan Moon
I don't want to get mad, but this is going too far. Your basically saying that everything that we believe is wrong. You are being a smart aleck. You are trying to act like you are being non-biased and giving and honest debate, but you are the one starting to get nasty.

/Facedesk. /Facedesk. /Facedesk.

I'm not getting nasty, I'm providing a fact. There is no proof they WEREN'T HIGH OR DRUNK. You're saying everything I believe is wrong, so I wouldn't use that one if I were you.

Permalink
| May 21, 2011, 6:24 pm
Quoting Aidan Moon
I am not going to turn this into a brawl. I am leaving this group until it calms down. I wish you to know God, and to be saved, but I cannot force my beliefs on you.

God Bless, Aidan


God bless, I hope you come back sometime. :/
Permalink
| May 21, 2011, 7:18 pm
Quoting Aidan Moon
I am not going to turn this into a brawl. I am leaving this group until it calms down. I wish you to know God, and to be saved, but I cannot force my beliefs on you.

God Bless, Aidan

Hey Later Aidan.
I might also be leaving this group because of the amount of arguments among Christians over spiritual doctrine.

Quoting Matthew Novosad
Quoting Aidan Moon
It's not "a bunch of ancient people" but God speaking through them.

They have special places for those kinds of people. They are called "Asylums".


Hey Matthew,
I don't know what the rules are for this group, but for you to come in here and start arguments and discredit the Bible is not at all constructive nor spiritually encouraging.
I for one have had a lot of fun debating with you online but whenever you get close to discrediting God's word I draw the line. To say that every single person who was used by God to write the Bible is mentally instable would be to discredit the Bible as a whole. Discrediting the Bible as a whole would make me think that you are not a Christian and thus do not belong in this group. I will not post much more until I can get some response from you and some others. I don't mind you being in this group(I actually like having you here) but your conversation is detrimental to The Christian Group.
Permalink
| May 23, 2011, 10:33 am
NOTE: In my previous comment I accused Matthew of perhaps not being a Christian. This was wrong on my part and very un-Christian like. I should not be judging Matthew yet I was. I am sorry.
Permalink
| May 23, 2011, 11:26 am
I would like to point out how many times I said they COULD HAVE. Not saying flat out they were, but the chance is there.
Permalink
| May 23, 2011, 5:34 pm
Quoting Matthew Novosad
Why should we trust a bunch of ancient people to modern?


Because believe it or not, the Bible is very accurate when it comes to science. Look at this site. http://www.biblefood.com/biblepage8.html

Permalink
| May 24, 2011, 1:20 am
Quoting Field Marshal Cliffe
On abortion, the fact of the matter is simply this:

If you choose abortion, many unborn children will die. If you want no abortion, many young mothers will die in childbirth. Either way, people are going to die. You just have to choose who.

And that's the truth. And remember folks, as Areesta always says, the truth hurts. The more true it is, the more it hurts. And Areesta is actually very Christian I hear...

At least the baby has a fighting chance!

Permalink
| March 20, 2012, 8:30 am
I'm pro-life I believe that every life matters and abortion goes completely against my believes the same with the death penalty.
Permalink
| April 24, 2014, 2:31 pm
Other topics
« Abortion (I know a little CFOLish)
student teen kid toy play lego child video game hobby blocks construction toy legos fun games



LEGO models my own creation MOCpages toys shop The Christian Group


You Your home page | LEGO creations | Favorite builders
Activity Activity | Comments | Creations
Explore Explore | Recent | Groups
MOCpages is an unofficial, fan-created website. LEGO® and the brick configuration are property of The LEGO Group, which does not sponsor, own, or endorse this site.
©2002-2014 Sean Kenney Design Inc | Privacy policy | Terms of use