We don't even know what fighting is.

62 years ago this was not an uncommon sight for thousands of Americans, Canadians, and Brits. Hopefully, we will never know what they felt on those Higgins Boats. I'd much rather discuss their bravery and heroic deeds than the useless pratter that I hear on these blogs. Do people make blogs just to have an opportunity to senselessly dog other people?

I am tired of a few things. 1. Don't tell me you are a Christian if you don't really care to advance the Gospel of Jesus Christ because I won't believe you (and because I want to advance the Gospel assume that I will tell you about it.) 2. If you aren't a Christian don't try to define Christianity or explain the bible or creation to me. The bible says that God's wisdom is foolishness to man. So, even though you don't believe it, you non-christians can't even understand the bible much less explain it. 3. If you cannot empirically prove your point then don't ever tell me that I am wrong. If you want to question me then make a case, but if you tell me that I am wrong then bring on some facts or bite your tongue.

These blogs frustrate me because they give people the opportunity to pretend that they know something. I'll be happy to expound in the future, but for now I am just going to sit and be unhappy with the state of people who are willing to smile while they cut you to pieces.

Just know this: Jesus is God. Jesus came to this earth and lived as a human but perfect. Jesus died, on purpose, after living a perfect life, so that we might have a complete covering of our sins by His blood. We all have sinned. The penalty for sin is not immediate death but eventual banishment to an existence away from God's presence for eternity in pain. "If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved!" Right now, confess that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead!

If not now, WHEN?!?!?!?

Can't we all just get along? LOL

I've had an opportunity to read a number of posts and comments on quite a few blogs. I think that those of us who know Jesus is God and have made the commitment to make Him our Lord should concentrate more on plundering hell and populating heaven (to steal a line from an old band called Jerusalem) than pointing out the differences between us.

If I tell you that I go to church and you should too will that actually make you go to church? If I think tithing is biblical and you don't can I convince you otherwise by making cutting statements? I have only commented a few times, and this is only my second post of my own. Am I wrong if I want the people who love Jesus to love me, too?

Matt 25:40 "...Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done [it] unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done [it] unto me. " To quote Glenn Kaiser (of the Resurrection Band) "that means the way you treat the person you love the least is the way you love God the most!" It is so easy to want to be heard, to want to be respected, to want to be right. How about we just attempt to be in one accord, in Jesus, and fight to free people from the bondage of sin.

Am I alone in thinking this? Though we disagree on so many things, can we just agree on this one thing?

Double standards?

I am currently reading a book called "Closed Chambers" authored by Edward P. Lazarus who clerked for Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun in the October '88 year. This book outlines many behind the scene accounts that took place during many controversial cases being decided by the Supreme Court (henceforth referred to as the Court) throughout the past 60 years.

There are essentially three sections of this book. The first examines specifics regarding the shaping of our nations current laws and case history regarding the death penalty. The second, shorter, section documents the background of a number of civil rights cases that faced the Court. The third section, by far the most controversial section, recounts the history of abortion politics since the Roe v. Wade decision, the sanctity and strength of stare decisis (Latin "to stand by that which is decided." The principal that the precedent decisions are to be followed by the courts.), and most specifically, the role partisan politics plays within the Court and affecting the Court's decisions.

In one section the author praises the champions of civil liberties that emerged during the Warren Era. He carefully outlines the birthing pains of civil rights since Plessy v. Ferguson. The freedom that so many people enjoy in our society now would not be possible had it not been for some dramatic changes in our established ideals. These changes would have been nearly impossible if the Court had not specifically overruled old thoughts of race and gender. Lazarus has definitely written an engaging and informative piece of literature. That is why I am so disappointed. He drops that same ball that he carries when addressing abortion.

In his arguments defending the Roe majority his only real consideration of the idea that a "fetus" may be "viable" at conception (meaning that from the moment a baby is concieved it is a person) is that if a fetus was a person then people having abortions and doctors performing abortions would be committing murder. Giving 14th Amendment due process rights to fetuses would be too much of a burden on our entire legal system and life as we know it. We would have to reverse so much that is engrained into our present society and ideals.

Now, DOESN'T THAT SOUND EXACTLY LIKE WHAT HAPPENED WHEN WE FORCED PEOPLE AROUND THE ENTIRE COUNTRY TO TREAT OTHER RACES AS EQUALS????? If people were willing to champion that exact same thinking for the benefit of those who have the reasonable ability to physically defend their lives how can we not even entertain the idea of extending the same consideration for millions who have no voice?

Let the debate begin.