Thanks Bob

[Mystery]

The premise sounds great but this is completely unrealistic. Explain how a country could follow this logic. How does this apply to the abortion issue in America and the person who would be president.

He would do everything in his power to put an end to the oppression and injustice, just as each individual would. I am telling you how things should be, not how things are. Things are the way they are, because of liberals like you.

 

[Mystery]

Where is this happening?

We were discussing Hitler. Hitler was our neighbor. Hitler was systematically killing off people (including children) in his country. Try keeping up.

You see, no one in their right mind would say they would do nothing.

Perhaps you should get a hold of one of those, because I think you have lost yours somewhere.

Pro-abortionists do this by stating something like "well, if somehow you knew already that the baby was going to die before birth and aborting it would save the mother, Mary whom you knew was going to later give birth to Jesus, would you be for the abortion?... huh?" That's forcing a fictional answer and gluing it to the point you wanted to make.

You really are one ignorant dumb bass, aren't you?

Abortion is murder in every situation. You're a closet commie, and no "patriot" of this country.

 

[sopwith21]

It's actually an interesting question in one sense. You didn't ask me if I thought righteous governments should stop evil governments from committing wicked acts. You used that fact that it is legal in Canada as an excuse to say we should just make it legal here.

That is false. You know very well that I oppose abortion. The fact that I want to employ a successful, lawful strategy to outlaw it does not make me pro abortion... or Ron Paul either, for that matter.

If innocent people are being put to death mercilessly ANYWHERE in the world, then it would always be a good and Godly thing to attempt to stop that.

Then why don't you support the invasion of Canada, where all abortion is legal?

That is why removing Saddam from power was a good thing.

Saddam offered to voluntarily step down for one billion US dollars and free passage to another country. That, of course, is what we spend in Iraq alone per day. We declined the offer.

We were never in Iraq to "remove Saddam."

 

[sopwith21]

Individuals were never given that right. ... he would NOT say he has the right to kill homosexuals.

Then how does he delegate this right to his elected representative?

It is not murder for a government to put to death child molestors, murderers, and the like. That would be government doing what it was created by God to do.

God did not create government. He created the sky and the earth and the sea. Man created government. And according to Luke 4:5, Satan runs it.

Because of wickedness, God knew that men could not be allowed to just run around doing whatever they want to do.

So God does not give perfect freedom, he takes it away?

would you say it is accurate that your position is that it is a good thing for the government to put murderers and child molestors to death swiftly? Or do you oppose the death penalty altogether?

No, I do not oppose the death penalty. In rare cases it can be scriptural and just.

The difference in our views is why we would use the death penalty and against whom.

You would use the death penalty to kill those who disobey God... homosexuals, etc. And since scripture clearly states that one sin makes us guilty of all, you could not possibly kill enough people to keep up. Sinners would be born faster than you could kill them.

You already have millions of homosexuals to kill in the US alone... tens of millions of prostitutes and sexual deviants throughout the Nordic countries (hey, one sexual sin can't be any worse than another)... millions more in the red light districts in Macau and Laos... at least ten million more to kill in Brazil.

You can't possibly kill them fast enough. If you're not careful, they'll die of old age faster than you can get a government agent to their door to blow their brains out. God certainly wouldn't want that!

I believe that the death penalty should be used to protect innocent life, not to kill anyone who practices a non-violent lifestyle that doesn't match up with my personal version of God's will.

 

[sopwith21]

Do I personally have the right? No.

Then how do you delegate that right to your elected representative?

But the government does, because God has delegated authority to the government to enforce His commands.

The purpose of government is to make the world the way God wants it, and kill anyone who gets in the way?

Because God commanded that the government do it! A civilian doing it would be vigilantism, and God is against that, as well.

So if a homosexual lives next door and you put on a hood and mask and go over to his house and shove an ice pick in his chest while he sleeps, that's murder and that's bad.

But if a majority of your neighbors vote and say you're their leader, then committing the same act is okay... that's not murder and that's good.

And we know this because our God is consistent and unchanging.

Right?

prove that a homosexual is not harming the life of another by engaging in homosexual sexual activities.

Asking someone to prove a negative discredits your own argument. The burden is on the one making the claim. What loss of property or life have you suffered as a result of a homosexual, and what was the homosexual's name?

Also, which of your government officials would you like to appoint to kill him - give me a name, please - and how would you like the homosexual to be killed in the name of our God? Please be specific.

 

[sopwith21]

One last thing on the whole "kill homosexuals" debate here, you are all a little off about this as the death penalty is a state issue and no one here has mentioned it in your comparisons and calling for a death sentence on homosexuals. So once again the argument all of you pro-federal authority folks are using is inconsistent.

You're absolutely right, but remember, this was never about consistency of ideas or living as Christ did. Christ lived in peace and didn't try to make others kill in his name.

This is a mad scramble for government power, and using that government power to kill those with whom we don't agree. Ron Paul is dissed on this forum because he jeopardizes that power, and would leave American Christians powerless to kill those who disagree with them.

Instead of lethally injecting homosexuals, we would have to witness to them. Instead of electrocuting prostitutes and non-violent sexual deviants, we would have to forgive them and reach out to them as Christ did.

American Christians don't want that responsibility. Killing is much easier, especially when you can have a government agent do your dirty work for you. Killing is such a messy business... its so much nicer when we don't have to see it or hear the screams of our victims.

 

[PatriotBeliever]

So the Constitution is the only thing that determines your level of commitment between doing what is right, and doing what is wrong? If the Constitution changes, then so do you?

No, I am answering your questions within the context of governmental power and the abortion problem. The government is not man's tool to right every ill or police every country. The Constitution is a contract between We the people and our government and one of it's primary purposes is the restriction of government power. Within the context of your question, it is essential to the consideration. I don't believe the constitution, as it was originally written requires us to break God's law.

This is the problem with continuously adding hypothetical situations to the discussion in order to bring the answers closer to an intended opinion.

 

[PatriotBeliever]

I see, so if you choose to rape your neighbor, then the government has no authority to hold you accountable? Not the federal, state, or city? Who does? No one?

This is not even an issue. The government already has this authority, at the state level, and they do exercise it as they should. The states do this, again showing the inconsistency when the murder is abortion. Abortionists should be prosecuted consistent with this but currently it cannot happen because the Supreme Court has made it illegal for State's to do this as they should. Sanctity of Life Act returns this where it should be.

 

[PatriotBeliever]

He would do everything in his power to put an end to the oppression and injustice, just as each individual would. I am telling you how things should be, not how things are. Things are the way they are, because of liberals like you.

I'm liberal now? I'm Pro God, Pro Life, Pro smaller government, Pro Gun, for little to no taxes, I think homosexuality is a sin, I define marriage only between a man and a woman... but I'm Liberal? O.k., your right, black is white and and wrong is right then...

That's the point, you think the President has powers he simply does not have, period. People look too much to their all powerful man god authorities to solve problems that they cannot or will not change.

Picking and choosing the injustices around the world (the context of your original statement that I was answering there) has long gotten America in trouble.

 

[elected4ever]

This is not even an issue. The government already has this authority, at the state level, and they do exercise it as they should. The states do this, again showing the inconsistency when the murder is abortion. Abortionists should be prosecuted consistent with this but currently it cannot happen because the Supreme Court has made it illegal for State's to do this as they should. Sanctity of Life Act returns this where it should be.

The Supreme court did not make abortion legal but the constitution does. We do not live under God's law but under man's law. We need to influence the law toward the highist moral expression. We cannot browbeat the unsaved to see righteousness as we do.

 

[Mystery]

That's the point, you think the President has powers he simply does not have, period. People look too much to their all powerful man god authorities to solve problems that they cannot or will not change.

I cannot go next door and physically stop my neighbor from getting an abortion, but I can make a demand towards those who have the authority to do so. It is no different if that neighbor is in America, Canada, or Germany.

 

[PatriotBeliever]

We were discussing Hitler. Hitler was our neighbor. Hitler was systematically killing off people (including children) in his country. Try keeping up.

Perhaps you should get a hold of one of those, because I think you have lost yours somewhere.

You really are one ignorant dumb bass, aren't you?

Abortion is murder in every situation. You're a closet commie, and no "patriot" of this country.

No by this time in the discussion you had inserted several hypothetical scenarios outside the Hitler discussion or at least it was getting hard to tell. I've already addressed the policing the world theory, it cannot be done consistently, we took on Hitler when he attacked us, and we did it with a declaration of war as we should have. As I pointed out, he was taking over other nations.

I think I have kept up pretty well considering all of the rabbit trail "what ifs" that have been inserted to the discussion.

Now we get to the final stage of a debate where a person runs out of material. Name calling. I'll just leave that alone because I don't return insults, it adds nothing to the discourse.

Abortion is murder in every situation.

and I agree wholeheartedly with that. That's not the discussion point, the authority of federal government.

You're a closet commie, and no "patriot" of this country.

I cannot let that go but I will attempt to not insult you as you have tried to do to me. I will place my patriotism up against anyone's. Do you even know what a communist is? I was taught all about it during the cold war when I served proudly in the United States military, including combat in both Panama (the police action to stop Noriega) and I was reactivated for the first Gulf War. I served voluntarily so that people like you can retain the right to hurl whatever lies about people you wish. Do you even know what patriotism is? It is NOT blind loyalty to a country, a president or even an ideal alone. True patriotism is devotion to something both greater than yourself as well as outside of your own person and a person's willingness to sacrifice for that devotion. It has been confused with nationalism and zealotry to often than not. This is something that too many people think they know about but few have ever had occasion to participate in it in a real sense.

So call me whatever you wish, but do not call me communist or unpatriotic unless you are prepared to bare all you have in your life to compare to me. You have no other basis for your smears.

 

[PatriotBeliever]

The Supreme court did not make abortion legal but the constitution does. We do not live under God's law but under man's law. We need to influence the law toward the highist moral expression. We cannot browbeat the unsaved to see righteousness as we do.

The Supreme Court made abortion legal through case law which, unfortunately is the law of the land to the other courts and judges. It was a none issue before that.

I agree with you on a level, that we need to influence law as you say, but it has to be done right. The fastest way is to start with legislation like H.R. 2597 until an amendment can be had, which has been discussed at length already. It is a long process and not likely to happen anytime soon.

 

[PatriotBeliever]

I cannot go next door and physically stop my neighbor from getting an abortion, but I can make a demand towards those who have the authority to do so. It is no different if that neighbor is in America, Canada, or Germany.

That's the point, again, you are demanding someone who does not have the authority you are speaking of to do something they can not and will not do.

 

[elected4ever]

No by this time in the discussion you had inserted several hypothetical scenarios outside the Hitler discussion or at least it was getting hard to tell. I've already addressed the policing the world theory, it cannot be done consistently, we took on Hitler when he attacked us, and we did it with a declaration of war as we should have. As I pointed out, he was taking over other nations.

I think I have kept up pretty well considering all of the rabbit trail "what ifs" that have been inserted to the discussion.

Now we get to the final stage of a debate where a person runs out of material. Name calling. I'll just leave that alone because I don't return insults, it adds nothing to the discourse.
and I agree wholeheartedly with that. That's not the discussion point, the authority of federal government.

I cannot let that go but I will attempt to not insult you as you have tried to do to me. I will place my patriotism up against anyone's. Do you even know what a communist is? I was taught all about it during the cold war when I served proudly in the United States military, including combat in both Panama (the police action to stop Noriega) and I was reactivated for the first Gulf War. I served voluntarily so that people like you can retain the right to hurl whatever lies about people you wish. Do you even know what patriotism is? It is NOT blind loyalty to a country, a president or even an ideal alone. True patriotism is devotion to something both greater than yourself as well as outside of your own person and a person's willingness to sacrifice for that devotion. It has been confused with nationalism and zealotry to often than not. This is something that too many people think they know about but few have ever had occasion to participate in it in a real sense.

So call me whatever you wish, but no not call me communist or unpatriotic unless you are prepared to bare all you have in your life to compare to me. You have no other basis for your smears.

Your right. sometimes the greatest patriot is the one with the greatest dissent from an injustice. Its like Bob says, "Do right and suffer the consequence." In this country we defend the right to have a divergent opinion.

 

[PatriotBeliever]

Your right. sometimes the greatest patriot is the one with the greatest dissent from an injustice. Its like Bob says, "Do right and suffer the consequence." In this country we defend the right to have a divergent opinion.

Amen

 

[PKevman]

Then how do you delegate that right to your elected representative?

Because we live in a political system in which elected representatives are supposed to lead our country. So those elected representatives should do what they are supposed to do. It has NEVER been given by God to INDIVIDUALS to enact personal justice on people. In fact, the opposite is true. God said in Leviticus 19:18

18 You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD.

So this was a clear instruction God gave to His people NOT to take vengeance, and certainly holds true when one is talking about the enforcement of laws. This is WHY God gave us the principles by which a Godly government should be run.

God Himself gave the clear instructions to use the death penalty and gave the instances it should be used. Where do you think that the Bible shows God repealed the death penalty or the use of governmental force to put to death the wicked?

The death penalty is a deterrent and if an individual murders his neighbor in cold blood, a government that DOES NOT put him to death swiftly EMBOLDENS other evil men to murder their neighbors. Huh....just what we see in our society today when people sit on death row for years and years and there is little justice for the wicked. Check out the murder rates in Singapore and Los Angeles and notice that they have similar populations, but VASTLY different murder rates. If you murder in Singapore you receive a swift death penalty, and this is just further proof that God is right and man is wrong when it comes to putting to death those who should be put to death by the government. Will YOU ignore God when God says:

19 And will you profane Me among My people for handfuls of barley and for pieces of bread, killing people who should not die, and keeping people alive who should not live, by your lying to My people who listen to lies?”

God says when people keep alive those who should not live (murderers, homsexuals, child molestors, etc...)and kill people who should not die (the innocent unborn for example), we PROFANE Him!

Since God says it profanes Him, and God prohibits vigilante justice, who do you think is responsible for enacting that justice? That's right! The government!

The purpose of government is to make the world the way God wants it, and kill anyone who gets in the way?

If they are people that God says should be put to death, then yes. They wouldn't be put to death for "getting in the way" but for committing a capitol crime such as murder.

So if a homosexual lives next door and you put on a hood and mask and go over to his house and shove an ice pick in his chest while he sleeps, that's murder and that's bad.

Right.

But if a majority of your neighbors vote and say you're their leader, then committing the same act is okay... that's not murder and that's good.

No I wouldn't say that. A leader doesn't act like a vigilante, but rather uses the force of the government to enact the death penalty on those who commit capital crimes. If people kill or rape their neighbors, they should be put to death. A Godly government would ensure this happened. We don't have a Godly government today.

And we know this because our God is consistent and unchanging.

Right?

Wrong. The Bible in no way teaches that God is unchanging. That is a false doctrine of Calvinism and would take us way off topic I believe. I will only say this here for clarification: When Jesus came to this world and was born in a manger, that was a great change. Jesus had not been a baby in a manger from eternity past and is not a baby in a manger now.
When Jesus was crucified on the cross that was a change. He had never been crucified on the cross before that time and is not crucified on the cross currently. When God the Father poured our His wrath on God the Son for the sins of mankind on the cross, that was a change, and God the Father is not currently pouring out His wrath on God the Son.

I could go on and on and as I said it would take us completely off topic, but suffice to say that your above statement that God is unchanging is NOT a position that I hold in any way shape or form.

Asking someone to prove a negative discredits your own argument. The burden is on the one making the claim. What loss of property or life have you suffered as a result of a homosexual, and what was the homosexual's name?

If my personal loss of property or life were the standard for people receiving the death penalty, then you would have a point. But God doesn't say that. He says:

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.

AND

13 If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.

 

[Mystery]

That's the point, again, you are demanding someone who does not have the authority you are speaking of to do something they can not and will not do.

Yes, they do have the authority, because God gives us the authority to rescue those who are oppressed and suffering injustice. You are submitting yourself to other authorites who want to limit the authority of our government. Whose side are you on, the U.N.?

 

[elected4ever]

I sincerely believe that even with the divergent opinions expressed on this tread that the goal is the same. To defend the life of the unborn. I for one sometimes get more passionate about method than i do about the goal. I have been banned a few times because of it. i am just a passionate kind of guy and sometimes that passion is expressed forcefully.

I believe that the constitution does defend the right to life and and equal justice under law. I believe that the constitution defends the state and individual's freedom to choose. If we are to have a defensible descent, how could it not. That freedom to descent is the liberty that is enjoyed by every law abiding citizen. That is why Row v Wade is properly decided by the court. If we say that a certain group has not the right to choose the next groop to loose that right could be us. Where would our liberty be then. We sometimes do not take into consideration that the taking of rights of a single group, in this case women, is the same thing that Germany did to the Jews.

It is a weakness in the constitution that permits the abortion. The unborn are not considered as having the protection of law. They do not have dew process of law. The mother does and the unborn are left to the choice of the mother. The unborn are considered a part of the mother's body. To the constitution it would be no different than having liposuction. We are all enraged by that. Our outrage and vocal objections have no standing in court.

No law, not even God's law written in stone can take president over the constitution as the base law of this country, the constitution of the United States. All rights and restrictions are binding on the federal Government, state governments and citizens of the United States. All rights and restrictions are afforded to those born and those naturalized. The very instant a baby is born it has the protection of due process of law. When as Ron Paul recounted that he saw a baby taken from the mother and cast away live and left to die, those who did that were guilty of first degree murder and should have been executed by the state. That same right to due process and protections of the law should be afforded to the unborn as well as the born. That is the goal isn't it?

 

[elected4ever]

Because we live in a political system in which elected representatives are supposed to lead our country. So those elected representatives should do what they are supposed to do. It has NEVER been given by God to INDIVIDUALS to enact personal justice on people. In fact, the opposite is true. God said in Leviticus 19:18

I agree 100% but what i believe about God's law is irrelevant to the issue. We do not live under God's law as a nation but the constitution of the United States. It is the constitution that dictates what is relevant and not relevant. We live in this world but we are not of this world. We have to deal with what we find here. We seek to influence the actions of man and not dictate according to our own moral judgment.