How Do These People Live With Themselves?

[BAT]

I first heard Tom Papania's incredible testimony about ten years ago, when a brother in a local assembly shared two cassette tapes; one of Papania, and the other of a woman who claimed to be a POW in VietNam, I believe. 

The first time I heard it, something struck me as quite odd.

Papania claimed to have a ministry, Grace Fellowship International, I believe, or something like that.  I don't recall the exact title of his group.  What seemed odd to me was that a guy who was so miraculously saved just went around telling the same story, over and over, night after night...no doubt for money.  I mean, where's the ministry? 

Since when do we make a living off continually delivering a polished, dramatic recount of our past life and how we came to Christ, over and over again?  It just seemed strange, working up sobs and sniffles year after year, reciting the lines.

When I heard the woman's tape, I immediately noticed that both her and Tom had the same dramatic coach.  They turned the same phrases, followed the same story line, sobbed, and cried in the same manner, and ended their testimonies with a very similiar hook.

Tom's was,  "God reached down to the lowest pit of hell, and pulled out the slimiest thing he could find....sob....sob...sob.  That was me."

I don't remember the woman's but it was pretty much the same, with the sobbing.

After hearing the woman, I declared that both her and Tom were phonies.  Of course, I was ridiculed for saying that at the time.

However, the brother who procured the tapes from FOTF attempted to contact Papania to have him speak for an outreach in our city.  He was never able to make contact, because his "ministry" didn't exist at the time, in spite of the label on the cassette tape.

Reading here, and discovering that he still gives his 'testimony" for a living, a decade later is all the proof I need to declare this guy a fraud.  That just ain't normal, folks.  It's not Christ like, to tell the story of how we were saved---for a fee--- year after year, speech after speech.  His testimony was always more about what a mean guy he was in the mob, full of gangster name dropping and the clever story of how he hustled some mafia guys by taking away their pants at gunpoint.

I'd be more impressed if he became a plumber, or a drywall guy after receiving Christ.  A travelling testimony giver doesn't impress me much.

[jrusso]

OK.. here we go;

ganglandnews.com and jerry capeci are the top experts in the WORLD on organized crime. Mr Capeci has stated in over 20 e mails and writings that tom was never a member of the mob.

focus on the family stopped supporting tom after paying rocky scarfone $$ to settle a law suit, they simply state something to the fact that publishings and information has come forward that contradicts toms testimny

CBN paid $$ to settle a law suit concerning them and tom , they simply state something to the fact that publishings and information has come forward that contradicts toms testimony

tom lost a law suite in iccan

tom paid thousands to settle a suit wih scarfone

scarfone does not own anything.

there is no seedy jewelry store, rather over 13 companies .. from interiors design (14 years in ga) hosting  (14 years 45 awards) jewelry studio (with three shops online and an amazing list of news articles, photos of him with mob members,) commendations from stars mobsters and a whos who of public persona and print..

that PASTOR. well, he has said that he does ot know of anything before tom came t him. what does that say? he cnnot vouch for tom, only tell you how he feels AFTER the fact..

i have read about fake names, but if you knew rocks story and the facts, wel, you would not look at tom as anything but a grand fibber... rock has never hs his history. his father was kiled in a mob hit, his uncle, his grandfather andf on and on, here are facts online

go: youthofamerica.com otom of page

whywould he need a pastor to verify what that pastor has no knowlege about.. besides what tom says!

yet rock can tell you stories that make your blood run cold. he relates to the world , that mob world, like yo canto our mom

he simply is the real deal

i have read about rock and what happened with his brother, rock has little to do with him, has only spoken to him three times in twenty years. the last in1996 for ten mimutes, rock left home and decided to change his name to rid himself of the old world.. tom has been successful in bringing rock back into the fold and rock is not going to play toms game

tom never was a member of the mob let alone third in line to the gambino throne ,, do not believe me? go mafiaministry.com and liste to tom tell what were lies and get caught!

tom stateshe was feared on the streets of NY, yet no one knows his name, tom says he was made in secret, yet fear must have a name that preceeds the fear.. and NO ONE KNOWS HIM!

on the other hand, rock was never a member, he fought the mob all his life, including three wars.. one of them in atlanta

it was the fbi . agent john simmons to be exact, who came to rock in 1992 and warned him that they believed that tony pep had placed a contract on his life , rock went to war for a year, an amazing story

as far as names, scarfone is he real deal. tom is lucky at the least.. that he did not have to go head to head.. take my word or visit rock

now, my uncle who owned rockys pizza, was gambino connected and was the political arm for anthony trenacosta known as tony pep, captain in the gambino family, pep is doing ten year stretch and is to be released in two years. he was THE FIRST AND ONLY mafia member to set up shop in georgia, period. go ganglandnews.com and search his name

tony stated in fact that tom was full of you know what.. Tony was made by Gotti!

rock actually had a war with tony in 1992/3

tom says he was made by gambino himself, in fact, during he period from 1959 to 1975, , NO BODY WAS INDUCTED because the BOOKS WERE CLOSED.. if you take toms age, you will find that hew as never made because the books were closed at any peiod that he claims he was made

in fact, even SAMMY THE BULL said he was upset because even HE COULD NOT BE MADE until 1985! a year before tom says he had left the mob


on the other hand, when you meet rock, he is the real deal, he has tons of pics and other evidense that demonstrate his stories ..

now, tom cliams he is a harley rider.. imagine this, all of a dsdden he is a harley rider.. riders say they are bikers ....


rock has been a biker for 40 years

my uncle, before he passed, once said he was going to visit tom, the word is out,, I am sure that it will catch up with tom, in fact tom once belittled tony pep by telling a friend of mine that tony was a pansey.... that he was made by Gotti then moved to georgia because he, tony pep,  feared gotti. Tony was livid!

some count the mob out, but the fact is, at this very moment, tom's name circulates among a few hundred mobsters..

tom has made the mistake of using names like handing out free peanuts.. well, time often comes full circle

anyhow, before you make your mind up about anything, meet the players

tom went to high school

rock lived on the streets from 11 to 17

tom cliams to have owned biz in atl, and gave them up for god-- yet at trial he said he was living in a house paid by a drug dealer..that he had nothing..

rock has pictures, news articles (over 100) and a list of "friends" that dwarf the imagination, the business and things he has done are , well,amazin at the least.

rock did not ask for this, simply wanted tom to stop using things froma book he published.. well, rock has gone back to the old world

he is as he was, tom should take the credit..

rock has left the godly areana and now lives in world of realities.. he has gone undeground, so to speak, resumed old contacts and is handlng this entire picture in another way.

any way, look before you shoot

Bob Russo

[TruthTeller0717]

This is Brian Karjala.  I operate two websites: http://www.christianissues.com and http://www.mafiaministry.com.

A lot of the confusion in this forum is answered in my writings.

I've been very successful in exposing the fraud of Tom Papania.  That's why, other than Rocky Scarfone, I'm Tom's primary target.

I am a former employee at James Dobson's Focus on the Family.  In 1997 I quit my job there after I discovered that Focus upper-management was lying to its employees and to the public about Tom Papania.  I was tipped off by another employee who told me that the Focus management would not rebroadcast their "From Mafia to Ministry" Tom Papania program because they had doubts about him.  It was a secret that wasn't supposed to be revealed.  At the time this info was covertly given to me Focus employees were told by management that the Papania broadcast would not be re-aired on its radio stations because the large volume of responses the program created was too much for the organization to handle.  That was a lie.

The lies and secrecy of Focus on the Family is the bigger issue.  Today Focus admits that they have doubts about Papania, as the letter from Dave demonstrates (see also the letter I received from Focus: http://www.christianissues.com/focusletter.html).  But Focus leaders are hesitant to give out that information because it reflects negatively on the reputation of their organization.  You have to ask for the info; they don't volunteer it.  You want proof that Focus operates in deception?  Ask the organization to post their statement of doubt about Papania on the Internet.  You won't get a response back from them.  As Dave also pointed out (from reading my writings) Focus officials won't even issue an apology for their role in promoting this liar. 

To false Christians image is everything.

The person who wrote that Dobson "is not an idiot" has not visited my web pages.  Dobson is more than an idiot . . . he is a skilled deceiver.  Visit my page:

http://www.christianissues.com/focus.html

The above page offers some info not available anywhere else on the Internet and includes a listing of links from other sites that expose Dobson's duplicity and sheer stupidity.

Lawyers for Focus on the Family have studied my writings and have found no weaknesses in them.  They don't deny my claims.  Confront Focus on the issues that I have written about and they won't answer.  They will only respond by saying that I am a "disgruntled ex-employee".

As for Tom Papania, you can prove that Tom is a liar by visiting one of his newest propaganda websites: http://www.tompapaniaevangelist.com.

At that site Tom falsely claims that I was fired by Focus on the Family.  Contact the Focus on the Family Human Resources department and they must relay the information that I self-terminated my employment.  Tom further lies when he falsely claims that I dressed up in a devil costume and picketed the Focus campus.  He actually took the writings of another former Focus employee by the name of Brian Cooper and attributed Cooper's action to me.  Brian Cooper admits to dressing in a devil costume to protest the Focus alliance with the Mormon church (see Cooper's page: http://www.focusonthefamilyalliance.org/pages/915491/index.htm). 

Confront Fred Kelly (Tom's long-time mentor) about Tom's slander against me and see what he says.

So you see, Tom is pretty sloppy with his lying.  He doesn't think you're smart enough to research his claims.  At one of my sites (http://www.mafiaministry.com) I offer an NBC video exposing Tom's lies.  After being caught lying Tom gives the reporter a ridiculous answer where he states that time pressure causes him to misrepresent the truth. 

Do I need to go on?  Come on, Tom's deceit is an easy one to figure out. 

I've put the pressure on Tom and he's cracking.  That's why, in the last year, Tom began to impersonate me by writing under my name.  In the past Tom has been charged with identity theft.  Tom stole part of Rocky Scarfone's life story and made it his own.  Tom settled with Rocky in 2002.  You can confirm the current contract dispute between Rocky Scarfone and Thomas Papania by searching for their names in the Georgia court system:
http://www.gwinnettcourts.com

In 2005 Tom's attorney tried to get me to delete my web pages by threatening me with legal action and even offered me a "possible settlement".  I refused.  Tom has no way to stop me from telling the truth . . . and it's eating away at him.

Despite being threatened by Tom's attorney with a lawsuit for defamation I was never sued.  No lawyer can touch me because my writings are true and accurate.

I'm a life-long Christian with no criminal record.  In a character debate Tom loses to me. 

Thanks for reading.

In Christ Jesus,
Brian Karjala

PS: Be careful with your interactions with Tom and his accomplices.  These are dangerous people.

[outdeep]

I'm not so quick to put James Dobson in the same camp as Tom Papania.  If Dr. Dobson's ministry told a lie to protect their reputation (or perhaps to avoid legal hassle) then they have fallen into a trap that I have fallen into many times.  Not good, but hardly the complete picture of the man and the ministry.

Tom Papania evidently bases his whole life story on something that is completely false.  I cannot even imagine how someone gets started down that road.  I'm glad I'm not him.

[juststarted]

It appears maybe you are more like him then you think. If you think it's okay to lie to save face I think you better look at how you look at yourself compared to others. It is not okay to lie to protect your reputation or to avoid legal hassles.

[outdeep]

Agreed.  It is not OK.  But I have done it and many people have - often out of fear or bad choices.  In many cases, I have gone back and made it right.  But I still believe that is distinguished from fabricating a story and spending my life promoting it.

[vernecarty]

I'm not so quick to put James Dobson in the same camp as Tom Papania.  If Dr. Dobson's ministry told a lie to protect their reputation (or perhaps to avoid legal hassle) then they have fallen into a trap that I have fallen into many times.  Not good, but hardly the complete picture of the man and the ministry.

Tom Papania evidently bases his whole life story on something that is completely false.  I cannot even imagine how someone gets started down that road.  I'm glad I'm not him.

A few months ago I was incredibly startled to hear Focus air a program featuring a new book by former house leader Tom Delay and this after he was already indicted.
This incident was particularly troubling to me and I wrote to Dr Dobson to express my dismay.
It was a classic example of how many American believers have allowed political ideology to injure their Christian witness and judgment and Dobson should have known better.
Maybe Dobson felt he owed Delay a favor, and that in itself is quite revealing if true.
While I agree that Christians have an obligation to make their presence felt in the places God has placed them ( and clearly this can include excercise of civic responsibilites), the association of Christian folk with the Republican Party in this country has been inimical to the clear and uncompromising proclamation of the gospel.
Christians who think the accomplishment of God's purposes will come primarily thorugh the excercise of poliical influence are in for a huge disappointment. The evidence of history speaks for itself and Christians should of all people understand it.
Dobson needs to be very careful in the way he wields his influence or he will certainly loose it.
Verne

[outdeep]

A few months ago I was incredibly startled to hear Focus air a program featuring a new book by former house leader Tom Delay and this after he was already indicted.
This incident was particularly troubling to me and I wrote to Dr Dobson to express my dismay.
It was a classic example of how many American believers have allowed political ideology to injure their Christian witness and judgment and Dobson should have known better.
Maybe Dobson felt he owed Delay a favor, and that in itself is quite revealing if true.
While I agree that Christians have an obligation to make their presence felt in the places God has placed them ( and clearly this can include excercise of civic responsibilites), the association of Christian folk with the Republican Party in this country has been inimical to the clear and uncompromising proclamation of the gospel.
Christians who think the accomplishment of God's purposes will come primarily thorugh the excercise of poliical influence are in for a huge disappointment. The evidence of history speaks for itself and Christians should of all people understand it.
Dobson needs to be very careful in the way he wields his influence or he will certainly loose it.
Verne

Verne,

I think you are right on on this.  I believe that God through His people is already causing consequences.  As I watch non-profits (an interest of mine since I work for one) and how they are doing in the economy, FOTF immediately was down financially and had to do serious layoffs.  They were one ministry that didn't attend the developer's conference with the mutual donor software we use. 

I believe this is, in part, that FOTF has an identify crisis.  Are they there to help strengthen the family or are they a political organization?  In Dobson's mind, I think he sees them as one and the same but I think most folks recognize that Cultural-Warfare politics do not change the heart and bring the hoped-for response. 

-Dave

[Flora]

This is a huge subject and often controversial. I can’t comment on Dobson and the other preacher mentioned because I have not been following the events mentioned. However, I’d like to share my perspective that has evolved from my own interaction with politicians.

My main lesson learned is that politicians give support to a cause ONLY if it means more votes. They will cease supporting the cause if it appears that they might lose votes. However, most politicians are expert at double talk – where their comment can be interpreted to mean either support or no support. That way, often both camps are happy. When the comment is scrutinized, it is often full of loop holes.

Before the Lord, I believe we are to remain true to our walk with the Lord. We adamantly refuse to waiver in the issue God has convicted our hearts about. (In my case, the need for human health and life to supercede in value, the economic interests of corporations and governments.)  This will automatically lead to fickleness in political support. My political support fluctuates between Conservative (Republican) and Liberal (Democrat) because the attitudes of the politicians change. I lean more towards the Liberals because they tend to be more compassionate to the needy. However, I feel I cannot wholeheartedly support any political party without compromising my Christian values.

The DVD “Amazing Grace” is the story of one politician that was true to God and to the cause God had laid on his heart - the abolition of the slave trade. This politician, William Wilberforce, was highly influenced by John Newton. God used him in the British Parliament to fight for the abolition of the slave trade. God honoured his perseverance and granted him success.

This movie is very inspiring. I highly recommend it.

Lord Bless,

Flora

[Mark C.]

   The question of whether we should get involved in the "culture wars" like Focus On The Family does is not a problem for me as a Christian because I tend to see it as it relates to the "Two Kingdoms" teaching of Jesus (you know, "render unto Cesar etc.").  This means our expectations and responsibilities to these two realities, though they are very different governments, can work side by side.

  The Founding Fathers of the USA understood that there needed to be a "separation between church and state" (though this statement is often taken out of context and misapplied).  They also had a basic mistrust of all politicians and created a system of checks and balances within a constitutional republican democracy--- that means all  are subject to the law and that we can vote them out!)

   That this country was founded on the the principle that only God grants rights, and he does so to individuals, (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) means this is a govt. that is a whole lot better than Cesar's Rome and one that we have an opportunity as a Christian to have a part in.

  As a practical and modern example of this consider which "camp" we should be in as believers and if we should speak out like Dobson does: 

                                                                    ABORTION

  Liberals, like Obama, have voted continually to support "the right of the mother to choose to abort their child."  Obama in Illinois went beyond just 1st,2nd, and 3rd trimester and voted to support the killing of a baby after a failed abortion!!!--- in other words, the doctor botches the abortion and the baby comes out healthy and fine and Obama supports the killing of this newborn!!!  This goes beyond even the "partial birth abortion" method that clearly is infanticide!!!  No Christian can remain silent and vote for these kinds of people with a clear conscience!

  As Christians what are we to do in a representative republic like ours where our constitution says we make the govt.? ("by the people").  We don't live in a dictatorship where we have no voice, and so our passivity in this culture war means we are not "rendering" what we owe the age in which we live.  For those who do live in a dictatorship as believers some have opposed their governments, like Dietrich Bonehoffer did in Nazi Germany, and they did so not on the basis of a theological dispute with Herr Hitler but on moral grounds.

  But how does this coexist with our knowledge as Christians that this world is lost and only the Gospel can effect true change in hearts?  My answer is that while we must understand that this is the only true hope of the world we still have a responsibility in the time and place in history where God has placed us to be a representative of what is right as human beings--- if you want to dismiss this as simply "culture" then you are walking around with blinders on.

  Flora's example of William Wilberforce is a perfect one; he was a politician who worked to abolish slavery.  Shouldn't he as a Christian just have stayed out of politics altogether and preached the gospel to the slave traders and owners?  After all, salvation is the only thing that is important for the eternal soul and slavery is only a temporal issue in this life----right?  Selah.

  In the example of Tom Delay that was raised:  I'm not sure what he did that was wrong (an indictment is not a conviction), but I don't think he was killing babies!  I have no great expectations that any politician is a great servant of God (or even a moral person) but if, like Tom Delay, he was against abortion, gay marriage, etc. then I think I know whom I will vote for (if the choice is between the Obama Democrat and a George Bush Republican!)

  Do I expect conservatives to win a "cultural war" by political domination in this country? No, not at all.  If I have a choice to make my voice known will I as a Christian be silent and passive in the face of gross immorality?  This is the question to answer; not how effective my voice will be.  Will it win hearts to God if I make a moral stand?  William Wilberforce's political opposition to slavery didn't win the hearts of those entrenched in this immorality, but it did mobilize a nation and a world that may have remained passive in the face of the evil of slavery.

  Do I believe everything that Dobson says or supports? No.  Do I think he is to be idealized as a perfect person who is incapable of making sinful mistakes? No. Can I agree with him when he urges Christians to stand for human life, marriage between one man and one woman, raising kids in a moral and religious home? Yes.

                                                                God Bless,  Mark C.

 

   

[outdeep]

For me, the term "culture war" does not simply mean "should a Christian be involved in politics".  This answer has been discussed much since the "fortress mentality until God takes us away in the rapture" era of the church ended and most Christians I know believe "absolutely!  Christians should carry their beliefs to all aspects of life."

What I see as "culture war" is that which pits the extreme ends against each other in a lock-horn no compromise battle.  To me, it carries the taste of "us vs. them".  The "us" are the intelligent, thoughtful godly people who have thought through the issues and the "them" is the out-of-control irrational folks who are out to destroy our country.

While this may hold true to some extent - there are the "abortion in all cases for everybody and no compromise" people out there (just like there are "no abortion in any case and no compromise" people as well), such a generalization seems to me has only caused an impass so that any progress in either direction comes from legal manuvering, filibusters, etc. instead of actually changing and convincing the heart.

In my mind, it seems that most person-on-the-street person believes that abortion is something that should be minimized.  Even the pro-choice person would probably rather his or her daughter didn't have to be in a position to get an abortion.  Even many who vote to keep abortion clinics available for the woman in a pinch would see it as a sad and tramatic thing for women who actually have to use such services.

So, how do you use that sentiment (which I believe to be the majority of average people) to reduce the number abortions in a way that just jockying to make it illegal won't do?  Is it through promoting education?  Is it by getting sonograms into clinics so women can actually make a real informed choice?  Is it by providing better support for a woman to bring the baby to terms and provide incentives for adoption?  Is it by bringing greater accountability to the father?   You see, the "culture wars" is the battle of ideals but effective politics is the art of the possible.

Let's suppose we did "win" the culture war.  Let's suppose we got a pro-life President in who was able to appoint a judge who believed the words of the constitution instead of attaching meaning to the text that aren't there.  Let's suppose Roe vs. Wade got reversed so the decision passed down to the states.  Let's then suppose the states made the decision and you have some states that are abortion states and other states that are not abortion states.  What did we accomplish?  Didn't we just change the geographics of where people get abortions? 

So for me, it is not a question of whether Christians should be engaged in culture and politics. They absolutely should be.  The question is what is the best way to engage culture in order to change hearts.  In my opinion the "culture war" model has not only been ineffective but it completely shuts down communication to the extent that the resentment is so high no one is going to give an inch.  Any progress will be through manipulation of the system instead of discussion and engagement as Wilberforce did (who by the way both sides of the "culture war" see him as their hero).

[Flora]

On Feb. 14 Mark wrote: "No Christian can remain silent and vote for these kinds of people with a clear conscience!"

I very much agree that Christians need to speak out and let their voice be heard.

The real dilemma here is the fact that no one political party expresses the Christian perspective on all the issues. Therefore, a person is forced to decide what issues matter the most to them at that point in time. If family values were the only values that mattered, then I would wholeheartedly agree with supporting the Conservatives (Republicans).

However, if we take the value of the right to life, liberty and security of the person, then it is not so easy to decide what party to support. Do you view the unborn baby as the only group of individuals whose lives have been rendered valueless by society? If you do, then it is time you opened your eyes and saw the suffering and death of those whose life is rendered valueless by the lifestyle choices of modern society.

We live in a “Me first” generation, that is not willing to consider the needs of others if that consideration will inconvenience me. Individuals, who have become chemically injured, are sometimes referred to as “Casualties of Progress” or “necessary human collateral damage in our pursuit of a convenient lifestyle.”

God has allowed me to become chemically injured, and consequently I have come to know many chemically injured individuals. I have experienced the suffering, the fight for survival, and the grief when fellow sufferers die. Chemical Injury affects all ages, from infants to seniors, and even the unborn baby.

Reducing the toxins in our day to day environment is often viewed as an environmental issue. Let me state emphatically that I am not an environmentalist. However, I have been rendered disabled by the toxins in the environment. To me and to others suffering chemical injury, it is a health issue. It is the issue of “the right to life, liberty and security of the person.” On this issue, the Conservatives (Republicans) are awful. I breathed a huge sigh of relief when Bush was voted out.

It would be terrific if there was a political party that was against abortion, embraced family values and were good stewards of God’s creation, putting human life and health as a higher value than the economic interests of corporations. However, since this party doesn’t exist at the moment, I have two choices: 1) vote for the party that best supports my main issue, or 2) don’t vote at all.

On Feb 15 Dave wrote: "You see, the "culture wars" is the battle of ideals but effective politics is the art of the possible."

I agree with Dave’s statement. 

My argument is not to stop the use of pesticides, etc, although I would dearly love to see pesticide usage banned. My argument is simply: “make room for those of us with chemical injury to live somewhere, a place where we aren’t forced to be exposed to these poisons. Grant us a safe, secure place to live, and effective medical help.”

My hope is in God.

Lord Bless,

Flora

[Mark C.]

Hi Dave and Flora!

  Good discussion! 

   Flora,
  It is very important to prioritize when we think about where to give our political support.  To give an Assembly example I've heard from those that say: "I know the Assm. treated some folks very bad, but for me as an individual it was a positive experience.  In other words, it is all about me, and I'm unable to evaluate relative moral values.  (I know you are not saying this, I'm only trying to make the point that some issues are more important to a Christian than others).

 I do view the killing of children as much more extreme than say dealing with carbon emissions--- in the first instance death is instant and complete and with global warming there is (even in the worse case scenario) only long range consequences that are iffy at best.

  I'm probably in the minority, but I think Bush bravely stuck to certain very good moral principles as President and suffered as a politician as a result.   

    Dave,
  You are of course right that Politics are "the art of the possible", but our principles should never be. While Wilberforce used that "art" he never wavered in his commitment to the abolition of slavery.  What can we "compromise" when it comes to abortion that will bring us closer to those who have no problem with the killing of a child after birth?

   I think the term "Cultural war" is a misnomer anyway;  the way I see it we have a moral values war that is raging.  One culture is not necessarily better than the next, but ones moral values most certainly are.  It is also very true that some moral values are more important to a society than others and deserve more attention. 

 We can and do legislate morality everyday; as an example, murder is against the law.  Do people still commit murder even though we have laws against it? Yes, so why don't we just chuck the law as it doesn't seem to work?  This is the same with abortion--- yes, abortions will probably continue, but that doesn't mean we as a society shouldn't oppose it's legalization--- and most certaintly when the child could live outside the womb if delivered.

   There are those who seem to see the highest good being fulfilled by a politician who takes a stand as the "Moderate"; the one who is willing to see both sides of an issue and come up with a compromise.  Their goal is to avoid an ugly war that only drives each group farther away from a peaceful agreement that lies somewhere in between the "2 extremes."

  The US faced a dilemma prior to the Civil War where 2 extreme views on slavery were involved in a severe moral values war.  Abraham Lincoln opposed the voice of the moderates of his time and instead stuck to his principles that the Uniion must stay together and that slavery was an evil that must end.  There ended up being no political compromise that Lincoln could support while still holding on to his principles.  His decision brought about a real war, and at a very ugly cost!  Was it worth it?  Wouldn't it have been better to just drop the whole abolition thing and let the South have their slavery, or even their secession?  Even after that war that made slavery illegal it still did not win the hearts of those in the South---- was the war and the new laws against slavery worth it if ,"hearts were not won as a result?"

  This battle over abolition had "extremists" on either side, and many who were in between somewhere.  Lincoln was a great president because he stuck to what he understood were nonnegotiable moral values that were established in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.  Yes, he tried to artfully use politics to avoid war, but it came down to either you thought slavery was okay or it was wrong.  It is the same with abortion--- either it is wrong or it is okay--- where can we compromise?

                                                                               God Bless,  Mark C.

       

[vernecarty]

 No Christian can remain silent and vote for these kinds of people with a clear conscience!

 
                                                                God Bless,  Mark C.

 

   

There are two issues here.
On the question of remaining silent, clearly no God-fearing Christian can sanction the act of abortion.
It is certainly true that in main part, the democrat party by and large subscribes to the troubling notion of the "right" of a woman to choose to abort her unborn child, but not every democrat holds that position. Some Republicans are pro-choice.
How ironic that you will face federal charges in this country for the destruction of a baby eagle, but not a human child.
Even more reprehensible, is the position that Obama and others have taken that the gruesome partial birth abortion practices of the industry is somehow defensible under the some umbrella "right" to choose
Having said that, your statement about who can vote for whom with a clear conscience bears closer examination.
I think that position is exactly the kind of thinking that has allowed leaders of the Republican party to take Christians for granted, and presume that as long as they were on the right side of certain hot button moral issues (abortion being a main one), they could engage in any and all other kinds of reprehensible conduct with impunity.
Untold numbers of Christians voted for Obama and the democrat party this last elction cycle because of the blistering hypocrisy, wanton greed, and corruption of the Republican party. They had had enough.
Has anyone noticed how many supposedly "moral" Republican leaders over the past decade (including men like Newt Gingrich and Bob Barr) have been guilty of very serious moral and ethical lapses?
Let me play devil's advocate for a moment.
Let us assume that your argument against voting for any non-Republican is based on the notion of the sanctity of life.
You will then have to face the question of this past Republican president's conduct in the prosecution of war.
I know it is easy to latch onto abortion as an obvious and ready issue in defense of the policies of George Bush.
It becomes a much more compicated question when one applies the principle consistently.
It is not my attention to make an argument for or against the wars prosecuted by Bush and company.
We Americans can be sometimes very limited in our perspective.
The vast majority of people asked will tell you that 50,000.00 people died in the Viet Nam war.
Few remember that number is generally applied only to American casualites.
Non American casualties numbered in the millions.
If the sanctity of life will be the ultimate factor that determines a clear conscience in the casting of one's vote, you will have to make the prosecution of war a part of your assesment.
I am afraid under those circumstance Republican/Democratic lines become somwhat blurred.
In my humble opinion, on the question of righteousness, there is absolutely no difference between these two parties, the mistaken notion of many Christians to the contrary.
Verne

[Flora]

Mark, I agree with you 100% regarding the value of the unborn child. However, my scope has broadened to human life at all ages – from conception through to old age. Murder is murder no matter how old the individual is.

 I do view the killing of children as much more extreme than say dealing with carbon emissions--- in the first instance death is instant and complete and with global warming there is (even in the worse case scenario) only long range consequences that are iffy at best.
       

This statement reveals your lack of understanding of chemical injury. Please don’t confuse chemical injury with environmentalist jargon.

In my mind, stating that “the consequences are iffy at best” is equal to a pro-choice person stating that a fetus is just a bit of tissue. Both statements deny death of a human being and consequently deny the value of human life. For someone chemically injured, exposure to pesticides, diesel fumes, paint solvents, household cleansers, etc. could mean instant death for them or serious illness taking months or years to recover from the exposure.

We need to be aware of the effects of our actions on another person’s life.

For more information about chemical injury, I highly recommend Dr. Grace Ziem’s web site.        www.chemicalinjury.net 

My own web site also has information about chemical injury under the general information section.  www.hrni.ca

Christians who think the accomplishment of God's purposes will come primarily thorugh the excercise of poliical influence are in for a huge disappointment. The evidence of history speaks for itself and Christians should of all people understand it.
Verne

I agree completely with Verne's comment. God's ways are not our ways and His thoughts are not our thoughts. God's ways are not restricted by the laws of human government. He is able to fulfill His plans through human government or through whatever other means that He chooses. For nothing is impossible with God!

Lord Bless,

Flora