Whose life is more precious to God ?

format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi

This debate is working on the assumption that voting Democratic in the last election would have meant U.S. troops leaving Iraq, which I don't think would have been the case at all. George Bush Jr. was elected on his domestic agenda, which was working fairly well while the Congress was majority Republican. It was well known that Bush was an opponent of abortion, so obviously he would get the bulk of anti-abortion votes. When I voted for Bush for his second term, abortion wasn't really a factor. I just didn't like the idea of changing leaders in the middle of a conflict, no matter how limited. I think the question in this thread is good for a bumper sticker, but it can't be answered on religious or political grounds.

when Bush was elected 2nd term, UK made national headlines "how stupid can the public be?"

Was it worth killing extra people for another 4yrs?

600,000 civilians alone dead by the direct actions of the troops. i guess everything is collateral damage with US, and then the public wonders "why do they hate us"

format_quote Originally Posted by Muslim Woman

sure i know but do Christians know ? I doubt .

Why do you doubt it? You have plenty of contact with Christians in this forum. Do we seem like we believe that Jesus told us to forgive sinners & punish the innocent people?

I don't see Christians suggesting that any innocents be punished.

Please don't tell me that all of the Iraqi deaths are as innocent as yet unborn babies, though I am sure some of them are.

I don't mean to cause any controversy, but the concept of cruficixion in christianity seems to be a 'blessing' doesn't it? Since its a common belief amongst the christians that the Messiah son of Mary was innocently crucified for the rest of mankind?

So the killing of innocents is somehow praiseworthy, maybe? Because one of the best examples for mankind is Jesus son of Mary (peace be upon them.)


Even though we disagree and don't believe he was crucified, rather he was raised upto Allaah and will return back to the earth when Allaah knows it is best, and he will slay the anti-christ and clarify his position as a servant of God since God doesn't have children of any sort, nor does He have any associates since He is way above that.

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

This whole abortion debate is too often stated in black and white terms. There is a lot of grey here. A freshly fertilized egg is not the same as a baby 1 minute prior to birth. The former is no important to me than a strand of hair. The latter is my equal and to kill it is murder.

Either the being in the womb is our equal and deserving of full protection or it is not? Nobody can name the point at which these protections should kick in. Any one we choose would be arbitrary. So this is really the quandry. Do we phase in rights? Should a 1/4 developed fetus have more rights than a fertilized cell but less than a ready to be born baby? Its really a hard call to make.

But that is the question. It is not a matter of pro-choice people wanting to kill babies and it is not a question of pro-life people wanting to control women's bodies. Both positions make perfect sense depending on the status of the unborn being. If it is to be considered our equal then abortion is murder, plain and simple and a woman's right to control her body is secondary to the baby's right to live. And if it is not considered our equal then abortion laws are unfairly restricting women's rights to control their own bodies (so you get those weird arguments like "men shouldnt have a say in this (because they don't have wombs))").

And I think this is where people will turn to religion, almost out of necessity. We're faced with a moral quandry that is simply too complicated, and thus unanswerable and unexplainable by human compassion and empathy, so those who have religious beliefs need to kick them into play. And I don't really have a problem with that.

While I don't agree with your thoughts considering a freshly fertilized egg, I do agree with your reason regarding why we have the debate and what the question is. Given that, if I were to think as you appear to with regard to the inability to determine when the being in the womb becomes our equal, I think I should therefore error on the side of caution protecting a not-quite yet equal being in development versus risking aborting one that truly was our equal.

--u are talking about a young boy whose mom was gang raped in his presence in their home. U can't expect from him right now that he can forgive Americans. Insha Allah ( God Willing ) , someday this unfortunate boy will be able to understand that because of Bush & some bad soldiers , we must not hate all Americans.

I can understand his anger and desire for revenge. If he will understand someday, then perhaps American families that lost loved ones in the various terrorist attacks will also understand someday and the killing will stop. The problem is that with each life lost the "someday" clock starts over and therefore the killing will never end.

I asked this question in another forum......1 American live = how many Muslim lives ?

There will never be an equity in lives lost since the answer to your question requires a formula which is calculated differently depending on which side is asking the question. Now if 4 hijackers killed 4000 innocent Americans that would make the ratio something like 1000 to 1 from a terrorist perspective. So using a like computation, for each American we lose we should kill 1000 innocents as well. I personally would prefer forgiveness on both sides since I see that as the only answer.

The colonel asked churchgoers if the global war on terrorism was a “just war” and a “God-ordained war,” which he later affirmed.

Are you going on record to say that terrorist attacks against the US are not "just" and God-ordained"? Are you willing to stand ouside Mosques with a sign which says so?

So , it seems to me that many Christians believe it does not matter if Zionists are killing innocent people in the holy land ' cause Muslims need to die today so that Jesus (p) comes tomorrow.

Jesus will return, and His return is not based on the number of Muslims, Americans, Jews killed. As a Christian, I believe that a living Muslim has a chance to accept the Lord Jesus, but a dead one does not.

By the way, is being a Zionist wrong but being an Islamist right?

format_quote Originally Posted by dougmusr

Jesus will return, and His return is not based on the number of Muslims, Americans, Jews killed. As a Christian, I believe that a living Muslim has a chance to accept the Lord Jesus, but a dead one does not.

By the way, is being a Zionist wrong but being an Islamist right?

Jesus will return and we are waiting for him as well. But he will return as Muslim (submitting to the will of Allah) and all the good christians and others will turn Muslim as well to follow him, and everyone else will be the other group. He will break your cross and kill the swine, and show all the deviant christians what he truly believes in.

An islamist is one who follows Islam. A jewish is one who follows judaism. A zionist is one who follows zionism, which is not judaism. They are what you call the KKK for christianity.

format_quote Originally Posted by islamirama

Jesus will return and we are waiting for him as well. But he will return as Muslim (submitting to the will of Allah) and all the good christians and others will turn Muslim as well to follow him, and everyone else will be the other group. He will break your cross and kill the swine, and show all the deviant christians what he truly believes in.

So if you will be following Jesus when He returns anyway, why not follow Him now?

An islamist is one who follows Islam. A Jew is one who follows judaism. A zionist is one who follows zionism, which is not judaism. They are what you call the KKK for christianity.

Since Islam strives to replace a nations existing laws with Islamic laws, it is more than a religion as Muslims on this forum attest. It is a world view with political ramifications, and thus it is more closely related to Zionism than Judaism.

I don't see what either of the last two posts has to do with the topic of this thread.

format_quote Originally Posted by dougmusr

So if you will be following Jesus when He returns anyway, why not follow Him now?

I love Jesus even now as i do all the other prophets before him. Unlike christians, the followers of Paul's religion, i stick with Islam. Islam is the final message to mankind and the only religion acceptable to God (as the latest version). I pray Jesus comes in my life time as he will leads us against the dhajjal (anti-christ) that will be followed by 70,000 jews.

Since Islam strives to replace a nations existing laws with Islamic laws, it is more than a religion as Muslims on this forum attest. It is a world view with political ramifications, and thus it is more closely related to Zionism than Judaism.

zionism is like KKK, an extremist group that wants to kill everyone and that thinks they are better than all humans. Islam is a peacful religion that calls to exist in peace, take care of the earth, and call others to the truth. It is more than religion like judaism and christianity, it is a way of life. That is why you see Islam in every aspect of a Muslim's life, from eating to sleeping to praying to politics to war to everything.

While zionists wants to kill all gentiles who they think are subhuman (you and me both buddy), Islam condemts any innocent killing. Prophet (saws) said if you save a life then it is like you saved all of humankind and if you take a life then it is like you killed all of mankind.

format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker

I don't see what either of the last two posts has to do with the topic of this thread.

Since I don't know how to delete my post, I will respectfully withdraw from the discussion with one final hopefully related point. Jesus said we must all become as children to enter heaven. Thus the comparison between the worth of babies and adults blurrs in eternity.

God bless all. May we bless each other as well.

format_quote Originally Posted by Muslim Woman

http://www.islamicity.com/graphics/BLRR.gif

--- u want my honest answer ? Then , unfortunately ans is yes . I wrote about it earlier.

some Christians i met online stunned me by announcing that they are gays , they don't believe gay people should be punished , some see no problem enjoy close intimacy before marriage , love child is not a problem to them etc , etc.


So , i got this impression from their posts that they believe Jesus (p) taught Christians not to hate sinners & thus they are allowed to commit sin , but no one should condemn them .....no question of punishing.






---- except Iraqi & Afghan people ? If Jesus (p) taught Christians to turn other cheek , why a Christian majority country dropped bombs on Civilians in Iraq & Afghanistan ?


I asked this question in another forum......1 American live = how many Muslim lives ?

How many died in 9/11 tragedy ? Ameicans have killed many more Muslims while taking revenge. Still , time has not come yet to stop war ? How more Muslims must be killed to pay the price of that tragedy ?






---ok , let's guess that most of them were criminals . Only 5 thousand innocent people including 1000 babies died.



Now , we can go back to the post title ....Whose life is more precious to God ? The 10,000 babies who may or may not born in the year 2008 in USA or those babies who are now living in this earth right now.


To make sure that 10 thousands US babies can born safely on Dec 2008 , can we kill 1000 Iraqi babies today ?

**

an interesting preaching :


killing terrorists is an ‘act of love for our nation’


By Laura Followell

The Tribune-Star


According to retired U.S. Marine Col. J. Tyler Ryberg, the Bible contains messages about war and capital punishment. God is a powerful soldier.

Ryberg, who served in the Marines for more than 27 years, gave a sermon Sunday morning at Good Shepherd Baptist Church’s Armed Forces Day, where some of the 150 people in attendance often erupted with an “Amen!”

The colonel asked churchgoers if the global war on terrorism was a “just war” and a “God-ordained war,” which he later affirmed.

“We’re killing Islamic jihadists, bloodthirsty killers,” he said. “Peace is not an option. You don’t negotiate with bloodthirsty, jihadist killers.”

.....“The only day we will have perfect peace is the day Jesus Christ comes back. … Our Lord’s coming back, folks,” he said.

http://www.tribstar.com/local/local_...126235058.html

This line :“The only day we will have perfect peace is the day Jesus Christ comes back. …" reminds me of another comment . A Christian told me that ( not the exact words ) he feels very sorry for Palestine people but he believes nothing can be done for them as it's a prophecy that they have to die before coming of the Jesus (p).

So , it seems to me that many Christians believe it does not matter if Zionists are killing innocent people in the holy land ' cause Muslims need to die today so that Jesus (p) comes tomorrow.

It sounds like you are hearing from some Christian extremists. The type that thinks patriotism = Christianity and vice versa. Yes, we have them too. Sadly & unfortunately, but I can't deny that they are out there. They don't represent either all Americans or all Christians.

The best I can figure out to do in situations like that is speak for myself, not all Christians, not all Americans. Then hopefully you will hear a few other voices, and maybe you will hear more voices that make some sense than you hear crazy voices. And when that day happens, then maybe you will come to realize that one or two crazy voices and even regretable decisions does not all America or all Christians make.

First, please understand that the USA is not a Christian nation. It is a secular nation. There may be more Christians than any other single group living in it, but the government is secular. Our laws are secular, that is they don't represent the values of any one sectarian set of beliefs. Further, the media is secular. The movie industry is secular. The music industry is secular. And the business community is most certainly the most secular of all. And none of these groups care much about what Christians or any other religious group thinks, unless they can figure out how to use them for their own purposes, not out of respect for anyone's beliefs.

Also, Christianity is not a monolithic institution. Just as there are differences among Muslims regarding some beliefs, so there are among Christians. And in the USA, where everyone is "democratically" entitled to their own opinion, many feel the same way about their faith. While something like 90% of Americans claim to believe in God, and maybe as many as 60% are members of a church. Probably only about 25-30% actually bother to practice their faith in any meaningful form. You've already noted in another thread of pitiful Americans are when it comes to knowledge of the Bible's teachings. The two most common statements I hear from people are: (1) I'm spiritual but not religious and (2) there may be only one God, but just like there are many roads up a mountain, there are many ways to God, anything that gets you there is good. People simply don't want to have anything to do with organized, formal religion and certainly not with the dogmas or doctrines that are taught in it. People want to believe what they want to believe, and few are on a search for the truth as much as they are on a search for the feel good and the convenient.

In that environment, the life that is most precious to God is their own life, and their own mores, irrespective of what God really thinks.

This means that people will respond to all sorts of things that effect them, before the actually turn to find out and submit to what God's will might be with regard to something. And once they have figured out how they feel about it, they will label it as God's will and utterly convince themselves that they are therefore righteous in God's eyes.

So, if someone flies a plane into a building it shakes Americans up. They become terrorified, the president too. And they begin to make decisions out of fear. Thus it is that Americans have gladly given up more freedoms in the last 6 years than in the previous 200 years of our history. In that panic mode, they were ready to believe and buy anthing that might give them some peace of mind. When the President came selling his snakeoil cure, invade Afghanistan (which I admittedly agreed with, and still think was justified -- I'll explain later if you want) the country was in nearly unanimous agreement. When later he changed the tonic of choice to invade Iraq (which more than a few actually questioned, and I never did support) he was able to get most people to buy it too. The country did it not to protect babies, but to protect their own skin. There really was a fear that unless the USA took the war to the terrorists, that the terrorists would be back flying more planes into more buildings or committing other acts of terror. And many of those same people are still convinced that this is true, even as they no longer thing the war was such a good idea after all.

Now I have said that I, in my mistrust of Bush's decisions with regard to the war, felt that voting for him in 2004 in the midst of the war, put me in the position of having to choose the lesser of two evils.

First, Bush's opponent, didn't give any better ideas as to what to do to get out of Iraq than Bush did. Kerry had voted for the war. He wasn't willing to commit to any sort of phased withdrawal. So, I wasn't convinced that Kerry would get us out anymore than Bush would. Also, in 2004, our last presidential election, the military campaign looked like it was coming to a close. We didn't have Sadam Hussein yet, but the war was effectively over, we simply needed to clean up our mess, rebuild the infastructure our bombs had destroyed, put Iraqis back in charge of Iraq and get out. And there appeared to be a desire to do just that. The insurgency and civil war that racks the country now had not taken hold yet the way it has now.

So, in a world that is not single issue voting, I had a mixed choice. Both candidates would stay in Iraq a little longer. One candidate would do that while attacking the unborn, the other would do that while trying to protect the unborn. There were no viable third options, not in our system.

When that is the choice, one is not saying that one life is more precious to God, or to me personally. One is saying that one you can do something about, and the other you can't.

Also, there is a difference in how you see the scenario and I in another way. You talk about it as if we are talking only about potential life when speaking of the unborn, and of real children only when speaking of Iraq. I submit to you that at this present time, both are real. That is the children to be born in early 2008 are indeed alive, already conceived right now. And I also submit, that if the civil war would stop, that many of the lives you fear being lost, would not be lost. Indeed, those deaths which you attribute to Bush are only potential deaths, deaths that are not going to be caused by the decision as to who is president of the USA.

As the USA has prosecuted this war, I don't think anyone is trying to come up with a formula that 1 American life is equal to X number of Iraqi lives. And while for some the motivation is revenge, I don't think that is the primary motivator. When called to remember the World Trade Center, it is not to get even -- how can we? killing others is not going to bring back our lost lives, and is costings as many American lives to go about it as were killed in the first place. Getting even is not possible, even if we were to try. No, it as a sincerely belief that doing so makes this country somehow safer. I personally don't buy that argument, never have with respect to Iraq. With regard to Afghanistan, I don't know whether it made the USA safer or not, perhaps if we would have kept our focus there instead of shifting it to Iraq, but even people like Hans Blix (the head of the UN weapons inspector, who has no kind words for Bush) thought that there were the dreaded Weapons of Mass Destruction buried beneath the sands someplace in Iraq. It was as if Hussein had put up a big sign saying "BEWARE OF THE DOG", when it turns out he had no dog. But having just been bit by small dog like BinLaden, most in the USA were not prepared to take a chance on being bit by one the size of Hussein, for we had seen what he had done in the past to Iran and his very own people. If it came down to trusting our own president, or one who we knew had killed millions, then that was an easy choice for most. At that point in time, saving one American life was probably viewed by most Americans as being equal to all of Iraq if need be. Not that people would have admitted that if asked in a direct question, but that was the emotion of the country at the time. And still is for some.

Perhaps the view would have been different if instead of seeing people dancing for joy in the streets of Iran, Iraq, and Palestine, even our supposed friends like Jordan and Turkey celebrated the humilation of America. If instead of that we would have heard people denounce the acts as betrayls of Islam, proclaim that BinLaden was not a true Muslim, that the use of terror was never acceptable in the eyes of the prophet. Perhaps then we would have thought that this was not some new threat that we had to be prepared to fight. But though there were a few of those voices parade out in the first couple of days following the 9/11 attacks. It was not long before those voices fell silent and only the cry for Jihad against the great Satan America could be heard. Al-Jazeera could be counted on for publicizing one more diatribe by Bin Laden against the USA, but never was there a commentary which denounced his point of view. What were most Americans who personally know little of Islam supposed to think. It was as if moderate Islam thinkers let the extremist elements of Islam take center stage, and that is how Islam came to be understood by many in the west.

And it was to deal with that perceived threat, real or imagined is irrelevant because perception is reality when people are making a decision, that Bush handily defeated Kerry.

The questions that you pose are not questions the majority of the USA struggled with. I did. I never bought the case that Bush tried to sell to the American public, but I still faced other issues so that I could not comfortably vote for the alternative to Bush.

Now , we can go back to the post title ....Whose life is more precious to God ? The 10,000 babies who may or may not born in the year 2008 in USA or those babies who are now living in this earth right now.

I tell you again. Each and every one is precious to God. But it is not 10,000 babies who may or may not be born in the year 2008 in USA. It is 1.2 million that will most certainly die unless we are able to change our laws. According to The IRAQ BODY COUNT Database, reported civilian deaths resulting from the US-led military intervention in Iraq as of Monday, 7th May 2007 totals 68,868 for the entire war. If the USA is held accountable for all deaths by virtue of having started things in motion, then the highest reported death tolls were in July 2006, averaging 100 Iraqi deaths a day. (Source: New York Times article) If that continued unabated for an entire year that is 36,500 deaths in one year. So, 36,000+ Iraqis might die if the sectarian violence does not stop in Iraq, or 1,200,000 babies will most certainly die if abortion violence remains legal in the USA, that is the real choice I am faced with.

Now, if you are suggesting that giving up on the life of those 1.2 million American babies would for sure save all of those Iraqi lives, and that the certainty of doing so was worth it, then I guess you are also saying that 1 Iraqi life is worth at least 33 American babies.

format_quote Originally Posted by Muslim Woman

it's not about US babies , i think , 1 living human being is more precious than any 33 future babies who may or may not come in to this world on Dec 2008. We are not even talking about pregnant women.

On this point I understand that if there is 1 person at risk of being killed today, trying to save that one person is more important than trying to plan how to save a million that might be at risk in a couple of years, especially if they don't even exist today.

Am I right that this is your major point?

If so, I not only understand, I even agree with that way of thinking. My point being, that I can do nothing about today. I can do nothing about any babies being aborted today. I can do nothing about any Iraqis under attack today. I can do nothing about tomorrow either. I can do nothing about anyone until November 2008. And then I can make a decision that will have an effect on who makes those decisions with regard to babies, Iraqis, and lots of other folks from January 2009 through January 2013. That's it. I get one chance to influence decisions for 4 years. And after that I go back to living with the collective decision of the nation, like it or not.

Taking all things into account, I made what I thought was the best decision that I could in November 2004, and will do the same again in November 2008. Beyond that, I just wait to see whether Osama or our more recent home-grown terrorists have figured out where I live or not.