Obama Smells Himself For Sulfur, Confirms He's Not A Demon

kanozas

se ven las caras pero nunca el corazón
I'm no Hilary supporter. Please read the factual information. There are some situations (considerably rare) which endanger both the mother and child to where there will be massive hemorrhaging or fast-metastasizing cancer, appendicitis etc. The goal in that case is to save the mother as both will die. A child in vitro early on is not viable yet but if the dangerous situation (mentioned in the thread) is not corrected, both the mother and child will die. This is not by hearsay nor make believe but by physicians who are aware of the situation AND are pro-life. In those scenarios, the child will be baptized immediately but they do not go in with suction nor scalpel, parting up the child.l. The diseased portion is removed and IF the child is in the diseased portion and there is no way to repair it, then the child will die. Four moral conditions must be met which are delineated in that article. Direct abortion is wrong, let me make that clear. I am talking about indirect medical intervention of the pregnancy that is inevitable in which both child and mother will die unless something is done and the type of surgery must follow a certain type.

There have been attempts in the past to replant an embryo into the womb (fallopian) and some births have resulted but those children typically die early on in life. It needs more research and I hope one day, they can successfully re-implant them to the uterus with a good prognosis (but if the uterus has to go, there is no way). I am not promoting murder nor direct abortion (again, reiterating the medical terminology only). People go through surgery all day long and quite a few surgeries don't have the best prognosis. One doesn't know if the patient's life will be saved. People in that case consult the their pastor and medical doctors. This is not an ordinary case.
 
Last edited:

kanozas

se ven las caras pero nunca el corazón
Abortions are complicated. You can try and make it a simple matter of right or wrong, but it rarely is.

Abortion didn't become illegal until the late 1800s. I think abortions became illegal in the first place as a way to control the wombs of white women to ensure that they remained in a traditional child-bearing role and to ensure that white women kept producing white children. People kept having abortions anyway. It then became legal as a way to make sure that women who chose to undergo an abortion could do so in a safe and sanitary way. So that they didn't lose their lives in the process.

No one is making anyone get an abortion. The state has just made is so that women are no longer DYING from the procedure. It is always a decision made between the mother and her doctor. It is a deeply personal decision.

Once again, no one is making anyone get an abortion. If abortion ever actually becomes illegal again, people are still going to have abortions. You are never going to be able to stop women from seeking out abortions. So, I don't understand why anyone works them self up about it. Put all of that attention on the kids who are already here. Because we can actually do something about that.

Legal or not, you will never stop women from undergoing abortions, you will never stop women from undergoing abortions, you will never stop women from undergoing abortions.


I can see your points and agree to the extent that nobody cared about brown babies, African nor Indian in this country but solely White babies. Abortion is nothing new and the bible does not say a lot about life in the womb but it does affirm that human life is valuable. It does mention that G-d knew us in the womb. That's actually a lot.

Infanticide and abortion have been done throughout all cultures from the beginning or the fall? I think that the bible is revealed to us in various ways throughout the generations of men and t hat we come to a deeper knowledge of what is right and wrong. I agree that they wanted to make abortion less deadly with the goal of preserving White lives but the fetus is human. No, we can't stop all abortions, just like we cannot fully stop racism, murder, genocide. All of it happens but we can fight to make life valuable enough to hedge protection around it and to curb it by laws and. punishments. Biblical values and interpretation of those values are what Christians hold onto as the Church first (G-d), civil later. It doesn't mean that we can never deeply examine any issue on earth.
 
Last edited:

beingofserenity

Well-Known Member
So what you are saying is that killing an infant in cold blood is something not to care about?

This is a baby... a full term healthy baby being killed and for no lawful reason whatsoever, here on earth.

Don't run ... There is no way that you can hide from the truth. An innocent life taken for no lawful reason.

I just hope I never have to make that decision.
 

Shimmie

"God is the Only Truth -- Period"
Staff member
I'm no Hilary supporter. Please read the factual information. There are some situations (considerably rare) which endanger both the mother and child to where there will be massive hemorrhaging or fast-metastasizing cancer, appendicitis etc. The goal in that case is to save the mother as both will die. A child in vitro early on is not viable yet but if the dangerous situation (mentioned in the thread) is not corrected, both the mother and child will die. This is not by hearsay nor make believe but by physicians who are aware of the situation AND are pro-life. In those scenarios, the child will be baptized immediately but they do not go in with suction nor scalpel, parting up the child.l. The diseased portion is removed and IF the child is in the diseased portion and there is no way to repair it, then the child will die. Four moral conditions must be met which are delineated in that article. Direct abortion is wrong, let me make that clear. I am talking about indirect medical intervention of the pregnancy that is inevitable in which both child and mother will die unless something is done and the type of surgery must follow a certain type.

There have been attempts in the past to replant an embryo into the womb (fallopian) and some births have resulted but those children typically die early on in life. It needs more research and I hope one day, they can successfully re-implant them to the uterus with a good prognosis (but if the uterus has to go, there is no way). I am not promoting murder nor direct abortion (again, reiterating the medical terminology only). People go through surgery all day long and quite a few surgeries don't have the best prognosis. One doesn't know if the patient's life will be saved. People in that case consult the their pastor and medical doctors. This is not an ordinary case.
Please read carefully the facts of what I am sharing here.

The fact is that Hillary's agenda and full intent is to lift all abortion bans do that anyone, without medical reasons can legally abort a full term baby.

I never said anything against anyone, be it mother or child, in a life and death situation.

Hillary has been very open about this, having the restrictions lifted for everyone, yet she is using medical reasons as a cover-up.

Hillary Clinton is a liar; a heartless individual to take it this far.
 

Shimmie

"God is the Only Truth -- Period"
Staff member
I just hope I never have to make that decision.
FYI:

God cares very much about a baby in the womb.

Exodus 21:22

"If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows.

----------

How much more does God care about the taking of a baby's life? Not because it is a matter of life or death for the mother or child, but those who choose wrongfully. This is what Clinton is lifting the ban for, which is a wrongful death for an infant.
 

kanozas

se ven las caras pero nunca el corazón
I was talking about a different issue which only dealt with the endangered mother and imminent death for both mother and child - not Franken Clintonstein. I made a thread on what moral theology is saying about one specific issue within the Catholic Church which is is not a direct abortion in that sense at all. For example, if a mother were hemorrhaging from a burst fallopian, it would be licit to remove the diseased, compromised part of the fallopian that is killing the mother. The child, if contained in that portion of the fallopian, would most likely not be viable at that stage and would die as a consequence of saving the life of the mother. 4 moral conditions have to be met and NO DIRECT ABORTION is licit. Unfortunately, if the child comes with the diseased portion and is not viable, the consequence is death but saving of the mother. Or, if the mother had, say, appendicitis and needed emergency surgery, depending upon how far along the baby is and the chance he can survive, no harm must come to either the baby or mother. Hopefully, the child can be saved and incubated. If not, it is a duty to save the life of the mother. Appendectomies are dangerous to pregnant women. Whaddaya gonna do, let her die because she's 3 months pregnant but she has sepsis? They would not remove the baby but it's likely he will die in the womb as a result of the surgery. The surgeon has to consider those 4 moral conditions to be met so that no mortal sin is committed.

Franken has nothing at all to do with moral theology and this specific issue in the least. I've said various times in several places that we don't have good candidates, as most Americans are thinking. People are going to choose who they consider the lesser of two evils...evils, nonetheless. I'm not voting for Trumpez because he lied about caring about fetuses. He's got other insidious plans in tow and I'm not going to usher in my own genocide by a vote for him.
 
Last edited:

kanozas

se ven las caras pero nunca el corazón
What I am talking about has nothing to do with this and I hope the CF comprehends that. I feel sorry for their suffering, mother and child. I believe that is a case of direct abortion by ending the child's life where the mother was not in imminent danger but it's hard to tell according to the concealed info. Some mention was made by the doctor about her being in danger. I don't know if she were dying at that particular point after the sonogram or right before the procedure. It's just a diff. case than the article I submitted here. Some infants will die as fetuses and others at birth or shortly thereafter. It's all tragic. Still doesn't justify directly attacking the baby. Re-iterating, what I submitted was entirely different.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/10/26/abortion-late-term-donald-trump-column/92691850/

I
 

momi

Well-Known Member
^ Hilary has also said plainly that she is coming for the Church. I cannot support her and don't understand how professed Christians can support her.

Yes she has. She has said we need to alter our views.

Obama has already shown his hand with that awful bathroom bill and lighting the WH up in rainbow colors. Smh

The only thing he has done for black America is cause many Christians to abandon their Christian values.
 

Belle Du Jour

Well-Known Member
Yes she has. She has said we need to alter our views.

Obama has already shown his hand with that awful bathroom bill and lighting the WH up in rainbow colors. Smh

The only thing he has done for black America is cause many Christians to abandon their Christian values.

If she said this about Jews or Muslims she would be done. Christians are weak. We need to toughen up and start protecting our own interests.
 

HappilyLiberal

Well-Known Member
Yes she has. She has said we need to alter our views.

Obama has already shown his hand with that awful bathroom bill and lighting the WH up in rainbow colors. Smh

The only thing he has done for black America is cause many Christians to abandon their Christian values.


She hasn't caused anyone to abandon their Christian values. If they abandoned their Christian values they did so because they wanted to!
 
Last edited:

Laela

Sidestepping the "lynch mob"
I don't agree that a person who is truly anchored in Jesus Christ will allow anyone to make them "abandon" their values or faith.. Certainly not Trump...he ain't got that power..He's only speaking for the silent majority, most of whom think like him anyway

Romans 8:38

As much progress as we've seen, we must remember there still exists white Christians with the pathology that they are a superior race and can quote that slave/master scripture to prove it to be biblical... and they really believe this to be true. Slavery has thought us that. I feel sorry for people like that. Y'all, I'll go look for that research by a scientist who explains this pathology. Sad stuff..
 

ommns

Well-Known Member
I don't agree that a person who is truly anchored in Jesus Christ will allow anyone to make them "abandon" their values or faith.. Certainly not Trump...he ain't got that power..He's only speaking for the silent majority, most of whom think like him anyway

Romans 8:38

As much progress as we've seen, we must remember there still exists white Christians with the pathology that they are a superior race and can quote that slave/master scripture to prove it to be biblical... and they really believe this to be true. Slavery has thought us that. I feel sorry for people like that. Y'all, I'll go look for that research by a scientist who explains this pathology. Sad stuff..


Re the bolded - I cannot understand this at all. Do they really think there will be a white section in heaven? I was listening to a radio program, a pastor told a story of a black couple who attended a white church for years. When they wanted to get married, the white pastor agree. The white members didn't' want the black couple to get married in their church, so the pastor told them they could not get married in their church. When I hear these types of stories regarding "Christians", I realize that they cannot be true Christians.
 

Laela

Sidestepping the "lynch mob"
Oh! The stories I've heard... It's one account, but mom got a good one when she'd visited a TX church.. This thread was a good one
https://longhaircareforum.com/threa...-that-have-me-wondering.584853/#post-14752373

Re the bolded - I cannot understand this at all. Do they really think there will be a white section in heaven? I was listening to a radio program, a pastor told a story of a black couple who attended a white church for years. When they wanted to get married, the white pastor agree. The white members didn't' want the black couple to get married in their church, so the pastor told them they could not get married in their church. When I hear these types of stories regarding "Christians", I realize that they cannot be true Christians.
 

ambergirl

Well-Known Member
If this were true then more then half of Americans would be stinking to the high heavens.

And dude in the video needs professional help....
 

momi

Well-Known Member
She hasn't caused anyone to abandon their Christian values. If they abandoned their Christian values they did so because they wanted to!

I said "he" and while the decision is theirs, prior to his presidency black folks weren't hardly supporting LGBT marriage. (as an example) Now they are silent because they don't want to be seen as disagreeing with the first black POTUS so IMO that is abandoning your values.
 

Shimmie

"God is the Only Truth -- Period"
Staff member
I said "he" and while the decision is theirs, prior to his presidency black folks weren't hardly supporting LGBT marriage. (as an example) Now they are silent because they don't want to be seen as disagreeing with the first black POTUS so IMO that is abandoning your values.
@momi... This is Soooooooooo true! If it had been any other president, there'd be nothing.

The majority of Black Folks sold their souls for President Obama. Souls that Jesus died and paid for...IN FULL! Yet, the insecurity of the Black community, sold out and the one to and for whom they sold out for...sold 'THEM' out. Obama went all in for the gays and left the Blacks who loved and idolized him in the dust. :roadrunner:
 

kanozas

se ven las caras pero nunca el corazón
As even Omarosa declared, "....we are keeping a list" ( opposers and non-supporters), the hairs on the back of my neck just stood up. I'm not saying it is him but it wouldn't take much at this point for any of this to happen along. Read the next article as well, on DJT's promise to move the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Oy vey.


http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/terrifying-end-world-book-pope-francis-wants-world-read/


The Terrifying End Times Book that Pope Francis Wants the World to Read
It’s not the first time Pope Francis has mentioned the 1907 novel by Robert Hugh Benson, but his recommendation appears to be due to the daunting warning that is...

by Geoffrey Grider January 29, 2015
In an airplane news conference on his way back from the Philippines, Pope Frances referenced a 1907 book entitled “Lord of the World” and advised all of those in attendance to read it
“And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.” Revelation 17:5 (KJV)

From the day he became pope, NTEB has always maintained that Pope Francis was a man on a mission and destined to fulfill end times bible prophecy in a big way. Evidentially, he would seem to agree with our assessment. The book he wants everyone to read is centered around two main people – the Antichrist and the Catholic pope. Seriously, we couldn’t make this stuff up.

It’s not the first time Pope Francis has mentioned the 1907 novel by Robert Hugh Benson, but his recommendation appears to be due to the daunting warning that is contained in the novel’s plot line.

“Lord of the World” portrays a dystopian vision of the future and culminates in the final battle between humanism and Catholicism, which eventually leads to Armageddon. The author depicts a Marxist world in which a charismatic senator from Vermont named Julian Felsenburgh promises world peace if world’s citizens follow him obediently.


CLICK FOR MORE ON THIS STORY…

He is made president of Europe, and then the world, due to his charisma and promises of utopia, but little remains known about him, even after his rise to power. He replaces the belief in God with secularism and tortures and kills those who oppose his doctrine.

As it becomes clear that the Felsenburgh is, in fact, the “anti-Christ,” the Pope gathers with the Cardinals in Rome in an effort to avoid the coming apocalypse. In the end, Felsenburgh ends up destroying Rome, killing the Pope and with the assistance of other world leaders and destroys the remaining vestiges of faith on Earth.

Pope Francis has mentioned “Lord of the World” on several occasions and says that it depicts what he refers to as “ideological colonization” and in a sermon in 2013 described it as depicting “the spirit of the world which leads to apostasy almost as if it were a prophecy.”

In his 2005 book “Literary Giants, Literary Catholics” British writer and former director of the Center for Faith and Culture at Aquinas College, Joseph Pearce described the book as a “..novel-nightmare” that “…is coming true before our very eyes.”

“The world depicted in Lord of the World is one where creeping secularism and godless humanism have triumphed over traditional morality. It is a world where philosophical relativism has triumphed over objectivity; a world where, in the name of tolerance, religious doctrine is not tolerated. It is a world where euthanasia is practiced widely and religion hardly practiced at all. The lord of this nightmare world is a benign-looking politician intent on power in the name of “peace”, and intent on the destruction of religion in the name of “truth”. In such a world, only a small and shrinking Church stands resolutely against the demonic “Lord of the World”

It is unclear whether Pope Francis believes that the apocalypse is nigh, but he clearly views the book as a warning to people of faith about the consequences of the choices that humanity makes.
 

kanozas

se ven las caras pero nunca el corazón
I said "he" and while the decision is theirs, prior to his presidency black folks weren't hardly supporting LGBT marriage. (as an example) Now they are silent because they don't want to be seen as disagreeing with the first black POTUS so IMO that is abandoning your values.


I think there are those who don't wish to be seen as racists etc. in a more pluralistic , "pc " society. Though there is certainly racism against minorities here, people are very quick to point fingers at anyone who doesn't promote and unequivocally support gay the lifestyle as a bigot. Blacks aren't used to that charge. Does anyone notice how it shifted from not judging oow children to shacking up and now people are silenced on LGBT overreach.
 
Top