Perhaps the more appropriate question would be, "Who would Jesus deny?".

Well it is simple, as a Christian it is my duty to abide by the rules of Government, after all they only exist by the will of God and their duty(Government), if they are righteous, is to punish those that do wrong. I do not know about you, but the last time I looked "immigration without the proper authority is breaking the laws of the land". How is asking someone to act within the law considered and act of dehumanization? I personally believe that telling everyone that a gestating human is not really human would be more of a qualifier for being an act of "dehumanization"....think not? After all, no one is suggesting condemning them to death without the "due process", which would be considered inhumane and barbaric...now who is it that takes the position that humans that are gestating are not human, but on the other hand consider the eggs of eagles simply a gestating "life"? I would suggest that you might consult Mr. Webster before jumping to conclusions. Or at the very least consider the following words of wisdom,"Let every soul be subject to governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment upon themselves (Romans 13:1-2).

Or even consider the words of the apostle Peter in (1Peter2:13-13), "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake; whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well; for so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the IGNORANCE of FOOLISH men.

As I said, simple, for it is the will of God to obey all righteous laws, and I do not see anything unrighteous about asking anyone to simply "register" and apply for legal immigration. Why not try getting an income tax refund without first registering with the IRS? As it also seems to me that the ones that really are dehumanizing these "poor" people are the the ones that take advantage of their "unregistered" status to work them at slave labor wages, and then expect them to pay taxes on a "false" IRS account without ever any hope of getting these taxes refunded, while expecting the rest of the legal taxpaying public to pick up their tab of HEALTH CARE, EDUCATION, HOUSING, TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATION and overall well being, just to propagate the use of their voting status for political power. Vote for me, "I'll keep the status quo, right?" Ralph, "defending the truth"

I don't understand what you are saying. Don't we have the right to decide "who" comes into our country. We do need some change to allow more low-income workers in, but until then, those that sneak across the border are are here illegally and should be removed. I have no problem with guest worker visas, but just make sure the "guest workers" are actual guests and not just here for the beer.

So we are to simply "ignore" a law that is considered humane in its intent, by requesting all those that wish to find gainful employment to simply register to allow accountability in this age of terrorism? You are suggesting breaking the law until such time as these points of question can be overturned to present changes? To work by this logic, we are asked to "sin" in order not to "sin"? There is nothing wrong in voicing "opinion" or making lobby effort to change the status quo, but until such time it is our Christian duty to abide by the laws of the land, and as of right now, the law states that "all" people must have a "legal" status or face the consequence. A perfect example would be the "absurd" opinion of Roe v. Wade which does not recognize the life of the unborn. What happens when anyone challenges this Law outside the legal system, by taking the law into their own hands? Often as not, the ones that claim to be working by the authority of God, inflect more damage upon their cause than does this semantical ruling.

The Apostle Paul address this situation in more clear language of comprehension, "Knowing this, that our man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. FOR HE THAT IS DEAD IS FREED FROM SIN. Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him; Knowing that Christ being raised form the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. For in that he died, he died ONCE; but in that he liveth onto God. Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord. Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.......For sin shall not have dominion over you; for ye are not under the law, but under grace. What then? Shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? GOD FORBID. KNOW YE NOT, THAT TO WHOM YE YIELD YOURSELVES TO OBEY, HIS SERVANTS YE ARE TO YE OBEY....."(Romans 6: 6-16). Paul concludes that SIN IS NOT TO BE FLIRTED WITH BUT SHUNNED, no one can accomplish GOOD things by acting in an unlawful(sinful) manner. If one uses Goodness to justify ones action of Sin they are the servant of that which was utilized.

Therefore if indeed there is injustice, it must be addressed in a "lawful" nature, for as much as we are told this man made conception, THE END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS, we as people of true Christian faith know that it is just not so.

Anyone can have a difference of opinion when considering things of a political nature, but one should abide by the faith in which they profess to be servants thereof. Religious faith is not a political tool to be used to slant opinion in one direction or another, one should abide within the limits that are set in its entirety, and not "cherry pick" passages that only agree with their personal ideology and leave the rest as simply to be considered "unreasonable". As I said, present the ideology of change, vote on it, let the law of the land be paramount, but live by its democratically gained results. But do not use the ideology of religion to feign a needed change, by telling people that to accomplish this change we must first sacrifice our faith by the action of SIN.

Like I said, I believe the Roe v. Wade opinion to be both illogical and absurd, but what do I accomplish by going out and perhaps bombing a family planning clinic, is this godliness? Of course not, the change must come from the place that controls the morality within this nation. THE HEART OF ITS PEOPLE. "WE THE PEOPLE" Ralph

The Bible itself states that it is "sufficient" in all things relating to the service of God, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for DOCTRINE, for REPROOF, for INSTRUCTION, for CORRECTION, for INSTRUCTION in righteousness, that the man of God be COMPLETE, THOROUGHLY EQUIPPED for EVERY good work" (2 Tim. 3:16-17), as was presented before. Yet, why do people indicate their lack of faith in this clear and understandable passage by stating, "My church teaches, or our church council decided to allow, or I believe that it is all right to follow both the Bible and my church tradition"? Jesus clearly demonstrated that when we follow the tradition of man we make the the commandments of God to bring no effect, "......you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition. Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying; 'These people draw near to Me with their mouth, and honor Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men" (Matt. 15:6-9)

Ones position should be very clear, either the word of God (Bible) can equip man with all he needs for "every good work"----or we need to be taught modern-day revelations; and therefore, declare God's word insufficient, and make God a liar. If God's word is not sufficient, then it can not be trusted. Why? Because it tells us that it is, if it is lying about one point, why should we conclude that it is not lying about another?

On the other hand if one finds that the Bible is sufficient in dealing with any problem that he/she might face along this journey that we call life when we use it to base our doctrine on, we must conclude that man-made doctrine is prohibited when worshiping and servicing God. Where would the justification come from? Can you find justification for the many different creeds and translations in this passage that God presents in Galatians 1:6-9, "....if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed"? Or 2John vs. 9, "Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God"? What about Deuteronomy 4:1-2, "....listen to the statues and the judgments which I teach you to observe, that you may live...You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take anything away from it..."?

Yes indeed, the Bible teaches that it is very well sufficient. Put it to the test, and prove it wrong, but please do not condemn it without even comprehending what it is teaching.

Ask yourself this question, whether you are a person of Faith or one that is more materialistic in their beliefs and conclude that nature is the true god of the universe. WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES IF I AM WRONG IN MY POSITION?

What if a person lives and dies while professing their faith in the Bible/Word(and the word became flesh and dwelt among us)? Have they not lived a life that is kind to others as they are taught? Have they not had superior health due to taking the teaching of abstaining from harmful products from their bodies to include those that are produced by open sexual practices (STD), smoking, overeating, etc? Do they not live within the laws of any nation as they are taught? Do they not respect their spouses, co-workers, etc, as they are taught. In other words what has been lost by following the faith and serving the professed God of Creation? Nothing with the exception of living with expectation of the HOPE to come. NOW INVERT THIS CONCLUSION, what are the consequences of a life lived to suit ones selfish interest, by placing them paramount along the path of this life? What if they are proven wrong at the end of the journey? Is this why there are so many "FOX HOLE" conversions? Is the risk worth the small amount of pleasure that is gained often times at the expense of others? WELL THAT IS THE REAL QUESTION, IS IT NOT? I will be the first to tell you, YES I FEAR THE GOD OF THE BIBLE, for he has proven Himself to be a very jealous God, and I fear his patience is indeed growing thin with the pomposities of man in serving that which was created instead of honoring He that CREATED. Ralph, defending the truth

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-cigna25dec25,1,5261164.story

Cigna stands by decision on transplant

A Friday funeral was set for the Northridge teenager who died last week after her insurer refused to pay for a liver transplant and then reconsidered. Meanwhile, the girl's health plan stood by its initial decision Monday.

Philadelphia-based Cigna HealthCare has a record of approving coverage for more than 90% of all transplants requested by its members, as well as more than 90% of the liver transplants, company President David Cordani said in a memo addressed to employees and distributed to members of the media.

A leukemia patient, 17-year-old Nataline had been in intensive care at UCLA Medical Center for about three weeks after suffering complications following a successful bone marrow transplant Nov. 21, relatives said. She was covered under the policy of her mother, a real estate agent.

UCLA doctors put her on a list for a liver transplant Dec. 6 and a liver became available four days later, the family said. Her doctors told Cigna in a letter that patients in similar situations had a 65% chance of living six months if they received a liver transplant.

But the transplant was not done because Cigna deemed it experimental in Nataline's case and refused to pay for it.

Nataline Sarkisyan.jpg



Nataline was buried today in Los Angeles

It is a tragedy she died, but tell me, who should Cigna not treat so that they could have given Nataline an 85% chance to live another 6 months. Should they have not covered the cost of that treatment for that little girl down the street who broke her arm while riding her bicycle, or that mother of three that need an emergency appendictomy, or that fater of two with the flu?

Unfortunately, the resources available to an insurance company are limited, and at times financial decisions must be made. This is a simple fact that goes with insurance, the question that must be asked is that if the government becomes the third party payer for people what services might they not cover???? Or if they decide to cover it all what programs will be eliminated to cover the cost? Because like insurance, government's resources are not unlimited and eventually they too will be forced to make this decision.

dmk