More Old Debates I had in 2004

That’s what I did with using my old debates and displaying them to you in 2005. Enjoy. I had this debate about 9/11, Iraq, Bush, etc. with Anne Crosby or Orphan Child around April 1, 2004 at 8:42 am. EST. She is a neo-conservative who agrees with the Bush agenda:

Orphan Child wrote:

Quite frankly, I have confronted you quite often TS. I am not afraid of you, and I am not a neocon. In fact, I am an old school conservative.

Response: You are not an old school conservative now. Do you know why? It's because you support the vast majority of Bush's policies of illegal laws (The Patriot Act and its Section 213 states that police can arrest you and search your property for any reason all without a warrant and not even tell you about them secretly searching your property. Even if there were provisions to do that before 9/11 in Drug cases it still violates the 4th Amendment of searches and seizures without a warrant or just cause for it defines it for all citizens accused in an ambiguous definition of terrorism. No where before 9/11 did the CIA have domestic powers and Patriot Act I and II gives the CIA that power as well. According to Ron Paul, many Congress people weren’t given enough time to investigate the bill more elaborately in Insight Magazine.

The Patriot Act was proposed before 9/11 and Bush does have veto power and he still signed it. Section 802’s definition of a terrorist is so ambiguous that it could include a whole host of non-terror actions being labeled as a felony. That's illegal, illegal wars (Iraq was no threat to America, no ties to al-Qaeda, no complex WMDs, therefore no purpose for war), and big centralized government (Homeland SSecurity, Northcom, IAO, etc.) Real conservatives and real liberals oppose that irrational nonsense and garbage. That's garbage. Hugh and Bill are funny cowards. I've come to anyone's face and say what a lousy failure this President is.

Orphan Child wrote:

AQ took responsibility for 9/11, as well as taking responsibility for many other terrorist attacks. It seems you would like to forget that AQ has been in the terrorism business for a couple of decades now.

Response: Of course it’s reasonable for some low-level rag-tag al-Qaeda members taking responsibility for 9/11. 9/11 was a terrible event. Osama (the head of al-Qaeda) on the other hand denied any involvement in al-Qaeda in an Ummat Pakistani interview on September 28, 2001 saying it's against his religion to kill innocent men, women, and children even in the course of battle. He swore on the Koran. This whole interview is found on www.khilafah.com/home/cat...92&TagID=2 (The Khilafah.com Website)

I don't agree with everything Osama says, but I will here the man out and Osama was a victim of CIA manipulation from Afghanistan in the 1970's onward. I don't forget that al-Qaeda is a CIA creation for decades. It's a known historical fact that from 1979-1992, the US gave $6 billion to the mujaddehin to fight for jihad. Osama was a well-known supporter of the MAK and other jihadists in the 1980's that were paid by him and armed by the CIA. MAK evolved in al-Qaeda by Osama.

The ISI and CIA supported Osama's activities and new evidence point to this support even after the Gulf War when Osama disagreed with U.S. troops on American soil. Al-Qaeda committed terrorist acts but in the early days, America supported them. That was the time he became the big boogeyman and patsy. Even according Harrison from the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars, the U.S. gave Muslim radicals $3 billion in funding. A lot of the tapes you hear of al-Qaeda members and Osama are proven frauds.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3340101/ is a site of a MSNBC article by reporter Mike Moran exposing the CIA ties with Osama bin Laden. He said this is blowback or we prop up a man and now he’s the great enemy will have to fight. He’s right and the Osama that you see today is a total product of the CIA. I won’t believe a lie. Osama bin Oswald had nothing to do with 9/11 by sophistication, influence, power, and devices. Also, the BBC reported that many hijackers (7) are proven alive and well after 9/11. There is no way they could of done it since they were alive after the fact or do you want to believe in the Easter Bunny instead. To believe Osama has the power in a cave to use 4 planes without intercept to sensitive U.S. targets in perfect symmetry to kill 3,000 people with no warning detected is garbage and a LIE.

Orphan Child wrote:

Are you trying to make me believe that you would of supported any efforts to avert 9/11, previous to 9/11? You do not support any efforts to avert another 9/11, post 9/11.

Response: I support preserving freedom (including protecting this country) whether before or after 9/11. What I don't support is fingerprints, illegal laws, unnecessary penalties for minor offenses, a high deficit; jobs outsourced overseas, continuation of this fake Drug War, the IAO Big Brother apparatus. There's a difference between wanting to protect your country and blatant in your face Big Brother and Bush is the greatest Big Brother, government expanding, illegal law creating President in American history. Bush should have protected this country when he received warnings from 14 countries outlining that planes were going to hit buildings. Condoleezza Rice (CFR agent) lied about this blatantly.

Orphan Child wrote:

Terrorists were trained in private airfields in Florida. One right up the road from me.

Response: That’s a half-truth. Many of the accused hijackers were trained in American airbases in Florida not just simple and private airfields.
MSNBC now admits that military documents that it is possible for Saeed Alghamdi and Ahmad Alnami to train as foreign nations since their locations were in 10 Radford Boulevard where foreign trainees are usually found.

This is Pensacola Airbase, a military (not a private) facility. The website where it can be found is at http://www.propagandamatrix.com/alleged_hijackers_may_trained_us_bases.html (Prison Planet Site linking up with MSNBC)


In the website it mentioned that: “THREE OF THE alleged hijackers listed their address on drivers licenses and car registrations as the Naval Air Station in Pensacola, Fla.—known as the “Cradle of U.S. Navy Aviation,” according to a high-ranking U.S. Navy source.”

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/archive/scoop/stories/3c/30/200208152149.5c2ae3a6.html (Scoop Archive Site) is another site proving it again.

Orphan Child wrote:

Nobody stood down that day. Nobody was prepared, pure and simple. All of this confirmed by mainstream news articles.

Response: This is silly and desperation on your part. The fact is that NORAD did stand down. NORAD is very advanced and tracks every object in the atmosphere worldwide. To say that NORAD wasn't prepared for the greatest terror attack in American history is ludicrous and overly ignorant plus not rational. You are not thinking rationally obviously just like Bill in AZ and Hugh. NORAD had 90 minutes to protect the Pentagon after the Second Tower was hit. NORAD can easily immediately send planes in 5 minutes to guard D.C., but didn’t until after the Pentagon was hit. Why? There are more than 7 bases in continental America to protect us. They did nothing so they stood down allowing 3,000 people to be killed. General Myers said he could respond until after the Pentagon was hit which was over 90 minutes after the first Tower was hit in NYC. This doesn’t add up.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.net/timeline/main/essayairdefense.html (Center for Cooperative Research)

is a site with mainstream sources proves the inconsistencies of the NORAD lies. New information from Michael Ruppert's Beyond the Rubicon has Dick Cheney, by an executive order, in May 2001 to handle all war games. During 9/11, Cheney stood down NORAD (admitted from testimony from Mineta and Alex Jones recorded military folks who told him that NORAD stood down as well) from intercepting the plane (or missile) to the Pentagon. Cheney also headed 5 war games during 9/11 as cover to execute 9/11. (NORAD say this as 22 blips on their screen) Ruppert's book proves this and lists Cheney as one of the suspects involved in 9/11.

Orphan Child wrote:

And if you want to use Payne Stewert as an argument, go ahead if you like. I have debunked that old saw about four times now.

Response: Who is Payne Stewart? I don’t know who he is. Tons of scholars disagree with the idiotic story of 9/11 giving by the White House. They include me, Carol A. Valentine, Alex Jones, Paul Watson, John Kaminski, and Jim Marrs, liberals, conservatives, and libertarians. There are legitimate questions about 9/11 that the administration has failed to answer and that isn’t extremist but common sense. It isn’t way out for the government to be involved in 9/11. The government has been involved in terrorist attacks for a very long time: just look to the Reichstag, wars, etc. I see no refutation by you in refuting the people that I’ve mentioned whom are telling the truth on what happened during 9/11.

Orphan Child wrote:

Please do use real sources. It would help a lot.

Response: I’ve shown tons of real sources before and in this refutation.

Orphan Child wrote:

Clinton was in office for the genocide at Waco. I don't particularly care if he was an internationalist, he didn't take care of the national defense.

Response: Clinton was in office during the genocide of Waco and is an internationalist. There are indeed a lot of national security failures he did and I don’t deny that.

Orphan Child wrote:

How can you really bring up the 70's and 80's, and try to pin the blame on the present administration? That is a stretch. The most recent cite there is 20 years old.

Response: You know why I cite them. It’s because it connects the dots. There is nothing wrong with showing the past to let you understand the present and improve the future. Have you learned that logic? I do cite recent sources, which is another lie.

One is W199- EYE in 2001, which Bush signed to prevent the FBI to investigate the bin Ladens or face imprisonment. One example of this is from http://www.propagandamatrix.com/bush_took_fbi_off_laden_trail.html (Propaganda Matrix Site linked to the Times of India)

when Osama bin Laden’s brother was refused to be investigated by the government. This is recorded in the Times of India and the BBC (both mainstream new articles) Who are you trying to con neo-con? Don’t you know that FBI agents are angry over this tragedy and bringing up lawsuits now including one from Minneapolis over this?

Even recently according to Newsday, at http://www.newsday.com/business/ny-bzsell0319,0,4764348.story:
“Bush campaign gear made in Burma His campaign store sells a pullover from nation whose products he has banned from being sold in the U.S.” There are tons of sources exposing this man.

Orphan Child wrote:

Your delusions are yours to have and hold. But please get your story straight, before launching an attack upon rational people.

Response: I have no delusions. Give me one example of my delusions which tons of people in America and millions worldwide have. I’ve got my story straight. You don’t, but continue through half-truths, character assassinations, and backups from pseudo-patriots like Bill in AZ and Hugh Tombstone. If you truly love liberty you need to oppose the Patriot Act, Homeland SSecurity, the war in Iraq, the UN, WTO, GATT, etc. and not align with Bush. Bush is not a patriot or a true Texan. Bush is supporting the United Nations by solely using their Resolutions to fight in Iraq and promising along with Blair future U.N. cooperation in the aftermath and reconstruction of Iraq. He isn’t even a Texas but born in New Haven Connecticut. He’s a Northerner faking a Southern bravado. I’m a Southerner born in Virginia and Bush isn’t and isn’t a Christian being a member of the Satanic Skulls and Bones and Bohemian Grove.

People who want rising deficits, more American G.I.s killed in illegal wars, job and economic woes, environmental threats, illegal laws to remain coming forth, the Second Amendment and the Bill of Rights burned is not a rational person to me. You are Refuted.

SOLA SCRIPTURA
SOLA FIDE
SOLA GLORIA DEO
SOLA GRATIA
SOLA CHRISTO

SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS
SEMPER LIBER

This is one of the greatest debates about the Movie “The Passion of the Christ” in October 6, 2004 where Pale Horse (a Catholic who follows Vatican I teachings which includes the lie that people who aren’t Catholic and are Christians are going to Hell) supports it wholeheartedly and I refute him.

Pale Horse wrote:

What reference of authority is that from? The Talmud?

Response: Actually, the literal translation of it is: “Vaticanus then is a combination of Vatic + anus, just as Romanus is a combination of Rome + anus. Therefore, vaticanus collis or vaticanus mons mean "the prophetic hill or mountain", which can be rephrased as the hill or mountain of prophecy. The word Vatican is just a shortened form of the word Vaticanus, just like Claudian is a shortened form of Claudianus, as shown above.” (From www.aloha.net/~mikesch/vatican.htm ) This is my simple error. Even though I don’t agree with the 7th Adventists, they are telling the truth about the Papacy and this is not from the Talmud.

Pale Horse wrote:

Who said Jesus The Christ is a graven image? He isn't a golden calf. God didn't forbid anyone to make an image of His Son.

Response: Christ isn’t a graven image, but the Bible perfectly says that we aren’t to create an image of God. The Son is God, so I won’t do it or venerate any image at all. The golden calf in the OT was worshipped as God and this was forbidden.

Pale Horse wrote:

So, where does God forbid anyone worship His Son? And since He is hated so much, Talmud anti-Christs would depict Him as always as the same as they are - porn stars, unscriptural Hollywood scenes, sanitized scenes, excessive violence in Hollywood ungodly movies, and occultic and incoherent messages. We can name several. All your claims apply to Hollywood movies of above, certainly not the Passion of The Christ. Hollywood movies depict the violence done to Jesus as depicted in The Passion of The Christ.

Response: I didn’t say we aren’t forbidden to worship the Son, but any image that depicts the Son in any manner is forbidden to worship since the Son is God not an image. I do realize that the Talmud is false since it was created by Apostate Jewish people around 500 A.D. adding to the Word of God. A religious movie must have reasonable license to have people who repented to play important roles. Occult scenes, excessive violence, bad symbolism, and ungodly components can easily rebuke the movie as a deception. All of these facts are clearly found in Hollywood movies and in the Passion.

Watch Unto Prayer Ministries at watch.pair.com/passion.html and watch.pair.com/cast.html have fully outlined this clearly. Just because a movie depicts violence doesn’t justify it for the Passion. The Bible says little on the violence Christ suffered which were about 2 incidents nothing more or less. His violence never saved us, but his blood.

Pale Horse wrote:

An addition to Scriptures by you. Will you be rebuked by Jesus for learning of the Pharisees?

Response: What is my addition to the scriptures? Christ exposing the Pharisees [with pride, anger, and strife], who added tradition to the Law, is found clearly in the Bible. To say that a man can’t rebuke heresy is fantasy. There is no evidence whatsover that the real church used an image of God to venerate. The Roman Catholics were heretics for doing that in the Middle Ages and the Iconoclasts rebuked them for it.

Pale Horse wrote:

"There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church." Mel stated the truth of the Catholic Church teachings direct from Jesus Christ who taught there is no salvation outside of HIM.

Response: Mel Gibson told a lie when he said anyone who isn’t part of the Catholic Church is going to Hell. The Word of God clearly states that any man or woman or child who repents, follows his Word, and lives a godly life until death will go to Heaven regardless of denomination. WE ARE SAVED BY FAITH THROUGH GRACE NOT BY THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH. The Catholics just believe in a lot of superstitious beliefs, so God is telling the Catholics to reject false doctrines and come out.

Pale Horse wrote:

There were 3 or 4 nails. The All Seeing Eye is God's. Freemasons stole the symbol and have corrupted it as you have seen. Catholicism vs Freemasonry will never be reconciled, only cosmetically as you see in the taken-over-by-Freemasons Vatican today since 1958. (Suggested reading about Bella Dodd's testimony to the Senate Committee). The brutalizing was done by Jesus haters. The brainwashing of millions of Christians to this day is done by Freemasons. There is a difference between ecumenical and antichrist Masonic "pontiff" John Paul's "ecumenism" whereas he adjoins pagans to heaven along with other antichrists. Welcome to your wake-up call.

Response: Any scholar of the occult knows that when a man talks about nails in a religious context, he means Satan. The man from Switzerland in the Sun Cult Site have truly exposed that. Mel even gave a clue of his Satanic impulses by saying straight up that I used the Left Hand to put the nail in Cavaziel’s body. The left hand (as any occultist knows) means the Sinister hand or way or the way of Satan. Christ said those going on Hell are on my Left Hand. The Order of the Left Hand is a real Satanic group dedicated to try to destroy Christianity [which they won't obviously].

The All Seeing Eye is not of God single God doesn’t have one eye and throughout ancient history, pagan religions have always used one eye to denote the occult and Horus (Satan). Look at www.luckymojo.com/allseeingeye.html is a site there to prove its existence before Christianity came along in ancient Egypt. Freemasons use it today and that alone means the one eye is Satanic plus its the logo of the Council on Foreign Relations. HOW BLATANT CAN I GET.

Yes, indeed Freemasonry is an evil group and the Catholics are right to oppose them in the 1700’s-1800’s. You must be a Vatican I Catholic and yes John Paul II is a Koran Kisser and a compromiser. As for this Vatican I and II stuff, this is rather striking proof that your church isn’t infallible at all. You added tons of unscriptural precepts for centuries and now you divided in 1958. The Passion just focuses too much on the brutality done by Jesus haters. We should not set our eyes on the disgusting brutality, but Christ’s blood which saves us from all sin. Freemasons have brainwashed people and I agree with you on that.

Pale Horse wrote:

Already you've shown your errors. Who will believe you now? The Catholic Church, not Talmudist John Paul II, has kept the Infallible Word of God.

Response: The Passion being a international hoax isn’t a deception. I will believe in Christ and his Word. God kept his word and the Church is solely the custodians of his word. The Word of God has higher authority than the Church. Christ has higher authority than the Church. The Catholic Church embraces false precepts.

Pale Horse wrote:

You've not shown any deception.

Response: The movie have shown plenty of deception. The movie says that Christ was tempted in Gethasame by Satan, but he wasn’t. The movie called the cup chalice during a scene when it didn’t occur in the bible. Many of the prominent actresses are intentionally known pornographers. The movie has Mary knowing about Christ’s suffering from underground the Temple when she never seen Christ in that scene which is wrong and Merovingian symbolism is poured into the film. Hundreds of Christians worldwide are exposing this trashy movie for what it is being a pure hoax and blasphemy against God Almighty.

Pale Horse wrote:

What is Truth?

Response: Truth is God. The Truth is also found in his Word.

Pale Horse wrote:

So,you are against anyone's conversion to the Truth? If my posts are "redundant" and "deceptive", then why is it that you've added to the Scriptures?

Response: I’m not against anyone’s conversion to the Truth, but if a man follows false doctrines, you have no choice but to inspire people to leave it. I haven’t added anything to the Scriptures. Robertson, Hagee, and Falwell are proven ecumencials and should be told to leave the One World Church crowd immediately and end all ties to the Council on National Policy.

Pale Horse wrote:

We Catholics are also pro-John the Baptist, protest against un-Scriptural "bibles" which have missing canonical books, pro-Bible and Tradition of Apostles, and we're all red with the BLOOD OF JESUS CHRIST. WE CONSUME HIS BODY AND BLOOD at worship in the Holy Mass as Jesus said "as often as ye shall do these things, do them in commemoration of Me." We do perpetually as Daniel stated the "continual sacrifice". This will never change.

Response: I know you’re a Papist. As for the Bible, the Waldensians, Protestants, Baptists, independent religious groups, etc. have preserved the real Bible for 2,000 years. The Apocrypha is secondary to the Bible and has tons of errors and was rejected by even Jerome and tons of folks in the early church. Tradition is inferior to God’s word since tradition includes oral communication (plus Papal sayings, words of “saints”, and other dogma) equating totally incoherent information of a variety of subjects that don’t stack up to the simplicity of the Bible.

Communion is always symbolic and Christ said to do it in remembrance of me meaning he wasn’t cutting himself to let his followers eat him, but use the bread and wine to symbolize his ONE AND ONLY SACRFICE. IT IS FINISHED. The circular disk to denote the “Eucharist” originated from ancient Mystery religions in Babylon and Egypt. Wycliff, Paul, Benegarius, and others are totally opposed to your viewpoint on Communion. THE BOOK OF HEBREWS PERFECTLY OUTLINE THE SOLE SACRIFICE OF CHRIST ON THE CROSS. IT’S OVER.

Pale Horse wrote:

"The world may pass away, but My Word will not pass away." - Jesus Christ

Response: I have no problem at all with that last quote.
I hope you wake up.

SOLA SCRIPTURA
SOLA FIDE
SOLA GLORIA DEO
SOLA GRATIA
SOLA CHRISTO

SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS
SEMPER LIBER

Note by Me: This is a better version of the debate. I always keep copies of my information, so don't think just because it isn't on the net, that I don't have a back up copy to retrieve it when I want to. The haters of truth have to got to do better than that to stop me in the world.

By TruthSeeker24.

John Prewett wrote:

Eternity is what it is all about.

Response: That's right eternity is what it's all about and innocent life has merit nothing for death is one more fact out of many that refutes abortion. Abortion is wrong by virtue of innocent life lost. That innocent can change society, be a leader, and follow God, but we may never know by its morally repugnant death. Man choice is limited and man can't do all he wants and whenever he wants. Man is limited and one limitation is destroying innocent life which is unbiblical as set forth throughout the Bible. (The Bible forbids shedding of innocent blood which God hates)

John Prewett wrote:

"Why fear man, the worst he can do is kill the body"

Response: It's not about fearing man, it’s about moral and biblical principles. Killing innocent life is murder and breaking God's law. I rather fear God and follow God's word than break God's word and fear no man.

John Prewett wrote:

No one is saved or damned due to the content of any human law

Response: Right, but human law don’t save or damn a man. Breaking God's word, the breaking of God's will and the rejection of God before death will damn a man. Abortion invalids moral law (The Bible says "Thou shalt not Kill") and abortion is in violation of the Bible so it is not to be followed by Christians or anyone else. If the government compels you do to anything contrary to your religious beliefs or moral principles, you have every right to reject the government and follow God. I follow God rather than men and abortion is a man-made lie. I reject the Roe v. Wade decision of 1973 and follow God alone in principle and law.

John Prewett wrote:

The abortion issue IS a Roman Catholic created issue.

Response: You know it is not and I've given you reasons why. Why do you explicitly deny this? It's sad that you are a strong and faithful solider of Christ, but believe in the lie of abortion. Abortion was used in pagan religions of Caanan, Celts, Babylon, etc. before Catholicism was ever concieved. In the OT, abortion is condemned and in the NT, Christ said he who offends my little ones shall be in risk of punishment by God.

In the early church, Tertullian, Felix, Hippoltyus, and others denied abortion as form of murder way before Catholicism rising in 313 A.D. The great Martin Luther and John Calvin were totally against abortion by their works as well. Protestants consistently in its documents condemned it as well. Protestant English common law by Blackstone condemned it as well.

Early Feminists (and some even today) were opposed to it as not just Catholics. This is not a Catholic issue, but many Catholics have exploited it for virtue of their ecumenical tactics in forming the One World Church system. Adolf Hitler, Mao, Margaret Sanger, and others supported abortion. Abortion was used by the Illuminati for a long time. I don't support them. I support Life. I'm proud to be pro-Life not pro-Murder. Abortion violates the Constitution since the Constitution forbids the taking of life without Due Process and the Right to Life is in the Preamble.

John Prewett wrote:

Heed Jesus's Revelation. Continued communication welcome.

Response: I will. You must heed Jesus' call to condemn the murder of abortion. Look to:

www.bible.ca/H-Abortion.htm

www.bible.ca/s-Abortion.htm

www.jesus-is-lord.com/head.htm

www.jesus-is-lord.com/abortion.htm

www.dianedew.com/abortion.htm

I will email my personal and researched information on abortion later so watch for it.

John Prewett: My name is John Prewett.

Response: John Prewett, you need to escape false doctrine like that. God respects all life equally and throwing innocent life away is morally wrong plain and simple.

The 2nd Debate with John Prewett:

John Prewett wrote:

So, presumeing that the instant the sperm unites with the egg, God infuses a soul, and presuming an instant later the fertilized egg is "murdered" or dies due to some other cause [miscarrage,etc], THAT SOUL IS SAFE WITH GOD ,... and I believe that soul is in the same condition as a new born angel,.... or maybe God will infuse that soul into another fertized egg,.... no matter, I'm convinced that soul is safe with God/Jesus. Jesus plainly tells us that physical death is not the big deal,.... for you or for me or for the 5 minute old fertized egg.

Response: Jesus did say that physical death for believers isn't important, but you are the one using illogical arguments and fail to see consequences. People have consequences by doing sin like if someone steals, they have a consequence by God. When innocent life dies by someone intentionally done by a human being whether a fetus, child, or adult by an knowledgeable human being, that's a sin. You have a funny way of changing the subject. Of course innocent unborn life will automatically go to heaven but this isn't about miscarriage, but blatant abortion.

Abortion is the intentional destroying of innocent life which is morally wrong and innocent life merits nothing for death. I see no conclusive evidence to ever refute that at all. I WILL NOT SUPPORT GENOCIDE. YOU WILL, I WON'T. IF THE GOVERNMENT FORCES ME TO ACCEPT THAT OR RISK JAIL, I WILL GLADLY GO TO JAIL. We have to have consequences for that the sin and the Bible perfectly outlines punishments by God for murder. God doesn't allow us to do what we want. Also, many mainstream scientists have deduced that human life begins at conception so I see your dehumanization of unborn human beings.

John Prewett wrote:

Your response is illogical. You say "right" in agreement, then you say "but ...." as if you disagree. Adultry is wrong, but I DON'T CARE WHAT THE HUMAN LAWS ARE ADULTRY ARE. Jesus was not a political activist, and He doesn't call us to be political activist,....

Response: I said right, because you are right in a certain point. That's not illogical, that's deduction and evaluation. I agree that man is not necessarily condemned by human law but by God's new law and that's it. Jesus challenged the status quo of the Jewish authority and the Roman government executed his crucifixion. Jesus wasn't a political figure in the sense of immediately changing the government at that time, but that doesn't mean we are to do nothing in society or especially the political realm.

We, as humans, have every right to go and show our opinions and be political (not necessarily trying to overthrow the government but publicly conveying the truth and inspiring people to change and repent) if we are called to do so. Everyone should speak out against evil. Speaking out about moral issues isn’t a sin. I don’t believe that politics should exceed saving souls. When 45,000,000+ human beings are dead and innocent blood cries out, you have to speak on it. Evil reigns when good men do nothing. Adultery has nothing to do with the subject, but adultery is wrong but in abortion a life is taken. You're dealing with the ending of a life and the last time I've check murder is illegal in this country.

John Prewett wrote:

I know the abortion issue IS a Roman Catholic created issue because I studied and read about this issue for several years.

Response: So, what does studying about it for years mean? I've studied abortion for years myself. I've listed the historical precedent of non-Catholics opposing abortion and pagan religions and cultures supporting abortion and you offer no refutation of that but I've studied abortion for years which is no vice or convincing case for me. That's illogical. I've have tons of quotations.

The Roman Catholic anti-abortion crusade was taken to the next level at the 1900's which you obsess about, yet many non-catholic abortion crusades existed throughout history which you fail to see or accept. The Romans, Celts, Egyptians, Nazi Germany, and Babylonians practiced abortion for years and the Early Church (way before Catholicism's existence in 313 A.D.) uniformly condemned abortion as pagan and repugnant. You have no refutation of that so you are illogical of your argument. Please, I know history also and tons of history spanning from the beginning of time.

John Prewett wrote:

No where in scripture does Jesus specifically "call" anyone to petition government to enact or repeal any laws. No where does Jesus "call" anyone to be particularly concerned with the "murder of abortion" The abortion fanatics, like old Israel, are "setting aside the righteousness of God and are setting up thier own standard of righteousness"

Response: What stereotypes but first Jesus. Jesus perfectly said Render God what is required to God and render Caesar to which is Caesar. Christ never led petition to stop adultery, pornography, etc. and you are right on that. Just because someone doesn’t do actions in petitions, doesn’t mean that specific activities are right to do or ought not to be condemned in the pulpit [or by anyone else]. Abortion should be condemned in the pulpit like adultery, stealing, etc. There is mutual respect expressed in the Bible with government unless the government tries to do something contrary to your moral or religious beliefs. If the government tells you that killing babies or discriminating people is good, you have a moral and religious right to reject the authority of the government. There is no verse that supports unconditional government support. For example if the government tells us to take the Mark of the Beast, we should refuse it since that's against the Bible therefore resisting the government. It is also biblical to speak for the innocent and the abused and abortion abuses and murders the innocent.

You call Pro-Life people fanatics. When Pro-Life people legally protest that's not fanatical. When Pro-Life people show disgusting images of the reality of abortion, that's not fanatical at all. When pro-Life people risk jail for there cause, that's not fanatical. The pro-death people are fanatical who view life as trash and violate civil rights by killing the unborn.

All Pro-Life people aren't fanatics and just show your fake generalization of people. We follow the righteousness of God and supporting Life. There are some fanatical Pro-Life and pro-death people so you link one side to a negative connotation which is just wrong and incorrect on you part. I didn't know that supporting innocent life was wrong. Wow. Israel is not even related to this subject. It's actually you in apostate Israel following the world and accepting laws based on time and place without learning that it’s morally wrong.

The media is exclusively pro-abortion anyway. These same people even oppose Partial birth abortion which the majority of Americans (77%) don't want in this country. Many of the aborted parts go into underground areas for the Illuminati to be used in rituals. That's one more reason to reject abortion from Satan to pagan religions to now.

John Prewett, you need to escape false doctrine like that. God respects all life equally and throwing innocent life away is morally wrong plain and simple.

P.S. Funny, I've shown this email debate in the internet now. It's also funny that I've sent you over 3 websites and my conclusive exposes on abortion and you have yet to refute it. There is no refutation of abortion on by emotionalism, pity, distortion, and historical revisionism along with stereotypes.

SOLA SCRIPTURA
SOLA FIDE
SOLA GLORIA DEO
SOLA GRATIA
SOLA CHRISTO

SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS
SEMPER LIBER