Thanks Bob

[PatriotBeliever]

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.?

Then be consistent. Following this line of reasoning the United States must take over the planet. This is neither scriptural nor plausible. Besides the fact that you have to completely discard the constitution, that document I take to seriously.

 

[Mystery]

Then be consistent. Following this line of reasoning the United States must take over the planet.

No, you ninny, nations can repent. They can do what is right. If they want to do what is wrong, like killing off the innocent people that live there, then they are a candidate for justice.

 

[PatriotBeliever]

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.

Careful, the constitution is irrelevant to some here.

 

[PatriotBeliever]

No, you ninny, nations can repent. They can do what is right. If they want to do what is wrong, like killing off the innocent people that live there, then they are a candidate for justice.

Name calling exposes weak arguments.

So you would disagree with our leader's next choice of countries to over through, Iran, because abortion is illegal there? You see, you already have a president who claims to follow God's law. He even "talks" with God. But he interprets it obviously differently than you (and definitely different than me, he believes Muslims and Christians worship the same god). Fortunately he is (or is supposed to be) bound by the constitution.

A major fallacy in this is your unfettered trust in men with power to deem who falls under their interpretation of God's law. You need to learn history. It is replete with horrors done in the name of God's law. Thank Jesus for the Constitution, what's left of it.

 

[Mystery]

Name calling exposes weak arguments.

Stop saying stupid things, and I'll stop doing it.

So you would disagree with our leader's next choice of countries to over through, Iran, because abortion is illegal there?

I have no idea what you are talking about. Seriously, I don't think you have the ability to comprehend anything I've said.

You see, you already have a president who claims to follow God's law.

I don't like our president, and you still don't have a clue what I've said.

He even "talks" with God.

I doubt it.

he believes Muslims and Christians worship the same god

He's not too bright, is he?

Fortunately he is (or is supposed to be) bound by the constitution.

Yes, it is, isn't it?

A major fallacy in this is your unfettered trust in men with power to deem who falls under their interpretation of God's law.

I don't trust in men at all, you blithering idiot (I'm calling you that because you are).

Thank Jesus for the Constitution, what's left of it.

I thank Jesus for the truth. He did not write the Constitution.

 

[drbrumley]

We were discussing Hitler. Hitler was our neighbor.

Hitler was not our neighbor. But I see where your going. The world is a village. :sigh:

 

[sopwith21]

Because we live in a political system in which elected representatives are supposed to lead our country.

Exactly. So... back where we started. If you do not have the right to kill a homosexual, how can you delegate that right to your elected representative?

They wouldn't be put to death for "getting in the way" but for committing a capitol crime such as murder.

Agreed. But homosexuals committed no act against anyone but themselves. Yet you want to kill them.

A leader doesn't act like a vigilante, but rather uses the force of the government to enact the death penalty

So the government acts like the vigilante?

your above statement that God is unchanging is NOT a position that I hold in any way shape or form.

Hope he doesn't change his mind about salvation.

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.

Who did he say that to?

 

[sopwith21]

I believe that the constitution does defend the right to life ... Row v Wade is properly decided by the court.

The problems there are self evident.

It is a weakness in the constitution that permits the abortion. The unborn are not considered as having the protection of law.

The constitution does not say that.

The very instant a baby is born it has the protection of due process of law.

At the risk of diverting the topic, that is false. Bush's Military Commissions Act of 2006 removed that right.

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?

Yes. And you are correct that the judgment should have been carried out at the state level. Get Ron Paul elected and that will happen.

 

[Lighthouse]

Of course we might have to allow the federal levitical government to stone disobedient children according to Deuteronomy 21:17-21 as well. I pray no one is going to say that.

Deuteronomy 21:17-21 doesn't even say that.

 

[Lighthouse]

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

Are you serious?! I am not the one who delegates authority to anyone! No civilian is! The authority of governing officials should not come from their constituents! God is the one who has deemed that there should be governments, and He has delegated authority to them! Our country is ignoring the authority He has delegated, and completely overstepping it.

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

Why else would god delegate authority to governments?

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.

Ya think?

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.

Democracy is not good, no matter what. What is good is if the government does what God commanded. And then it is justice, and not murder. Abortion is currently legal in this country. Abortion is still murder. Murder is illegal in this country. If I, as a civilian, go find the person who murdered my friend [hypothetical] and kill them, that is murder. However, if the government finds them, tries them, convicts them, sentences them to death and executed them, that is not murder. It is good, and it is right.

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

Right?

Yes, God is consistent and His character is unchanging.

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?

Why do I have to be the one who has suffered loss here? And for that matter, why does it have to be loss of life or property?

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.

Why does this have to be about me? And why does it have to be about a specific homosexual individual? It's not about either of those things.

The people who should be responsible for the prosecution, conviction and execution of homosexuals are the same people responsible for the prosecution, conviction and execution of murderers. Except for lawyers. There shouldn't be any lawyers. And no civilian should ever be responsible for those things either, so out with juries. That is, if we went with God's plan.

 

[Lighthouse]

Careful, the constitution is irrelevant to some here.

It's irrelevant because it can be changed. And while some of the changes were for the better, that shows that the document was flawed to begin with. And some of the changes were actually unconstitutional. And because of that, some of those amendments have been repealed. The fact that that can be done with what is supposed to be the supreme law of the land is a major flaw in the setup of this country.

 

[drbrumley]

It's irrelevant because it can be changed.

And the Bible is just ignored. So what's the point?

 

[PatriotBeliever]

Quote:
Originally Posted by PatriotBeliever View Post
Name calling exposes weak arguments.
Stop saying stupid things, and I'll stop doing it.
You still prove the point
Quote:
So you would disagree with our leader's next choice of countries to over through, Iran, because abortion is illegal there?
I have no idea what you are talking about. Seriously, I don't think you have the ability to comprehend anything I've said.
Because, as I have pointed out numerous times, you've completely left the context of the discussion and now you can't even remember what is was
Quote:
You see, you already have a president who claims to follow God's law.
I don't like our president, and you still don't have a clue what I've said.
Actually I've done everything I can to keep you on topic, but you've done everything you can to veer. I have more than a clue of what you said, you are condoning imperialism to moralize the planet to Christianity. This is not only wrong, it does not work, regardless of your intentions.
Quote:
He even "talks" with God.
I doubt it.
He doesn't talk to the God of our Bible.

Quote:
he believes Muslims and Christians worship the same god
He's not too bright, is he?

Quote:
Fortunately he is (or is supposed to be) bound by the constitution.
Yes, it is, isn't it?
Yes, but we were getting the impression the Constitution mattered little to you
Quote:
A major fallacy in this is your unfettered trust in men with power to deem who falls under their interpretation of God's law.
I don't trust in men at all, you blithering idiot (I'm calling you that because you are).
I'll take the childishness of name calling as a concession from you. Your position that the United States must police our neighbors, the world, requires your trust of the men in power.
Quote:
Thank Jesus for the Constitution, what's left of it.
I thank Jesus for the truth. He did not write the Constitution.

If God had not inspired the formation of this great nation, including the authoring of the Constitution, you would be living in a dictatorial colony at best. Jesus is truth and I thank him for our Constitution.

 

[PatriotBeliever]

It's irrelevant because it can be changed. And while some of the changes were for the better, that shows that the document was flawed to begin with. And some of the changes were actually unconstitutional. And because of that, some of those amendments have been repealed. The fact that that can be done with what is supposed to be the supreme law of the land is a major flaw in the setup of this country.

The ability to change the Constitution was built into it expressly because the founders acknowledged the imperfectness of all of man's institutions.
Even the "utopia" that some have proposed here, where men in the name of God use government go about killing homosexuals and everyone else that Mosaic and Levitical law calls for, (carrying out this "justice" in every other country in the world?), even that fictional planetary kingdom would be imperfect and subject to the same corruption that all empires have been. This is the strength that our republic had, checks and balances that were very difficult to change, at least in the beginning. As for the flaw you point out, the ability to change it, is extremely difficult and slow for a reason. This is why the correction everyone wants to solve the abortion travesty with is not likely to be found in a Constitutional amendment.

Also, my comment about the irrelevance of the Constitution to some here was me being facetious because several here have implied that it is a factor in this discussion. It is whether you or they want to admit it.

Of course that "flawed" document guarantees each of us our opinions because we are citizens here.

 

[Lighthouse]

And the Bible is just ignored. So what's the point?

Who changes God's word?

The ability to change the Constitution was built into it expressly because the founders acknowledged the imperfectness of all of man's institutions.
Even the "utopia" that some have proposed here, where men in the name of God use government go about killing homosexuals and everyone else that Mosaic and Levitical law calls for, (carrying out this "justice" in every other country in the world?), even that fictional planetary kingdom would be imperfect and subject to the same corruption that all empires have been. This is the strength that our republic had, checks and balances that were very difficult to change, at least in the beginning. As for the flaw you point out, the ability to change it, is extremely difficult and slow for a reason. This is why the correction everyone wants to solve the abortion travesty with is not likely to be found in a Constitutional amendment.

Also, my comment about the irrelevance of the Constitution to some here was me being facetious because several here have implied that it is a factor in this discussion. It is whether you or they want to admit it.

Of course that "flawed" document guarantees each of us our opinions because we are citizens here.

And if the founding fathers had relied on God's word instead of their own reasoning, then the constitution they would have constructed would not need to change.

 

[elected4ever]

If I say what I know to be true there is a good chance I will be banned. I will not reply further till I get some assurances from the powers that be that I will not be baned.

 

[drbrumley]

If I say what I know to be true there is a good chance I will be banned. I will not reply further till I get some assurances from the powers that be that I will not be baned.

Good luck!

 

[PatriotBeliever]

Deuteronomy 21:17-21 doesn't even say that.

But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his. If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
(Deuteronomy 21:17-21)

I added this to the discussion way back when several people were proposing that the government must kill all homosexuals in America (and apparently the world as well) because of the Mosaic and Levitical law.

The only way to be consistent is if America is supposed to follow the whole law, which none of them had really gone into, which includes this bit about a rebellious son being stoned and a few thousand other commands such as the feasts, the dietary restraints, etc. Why stop at the homosexuals? Does not the whole law apply and why would the government be responsible to carry out one death penalty and not the other.

I don't ascribe to the government doing this at all by the way.
Old testament Israel could barely keep such laws enforced let alone enforced justly and very few modern Jews, even the most orthodox, would attempt such governmental enforcement and authority on the scale that has been portrayed here.

 

[drbrumley]

Who changes God's word?

Nobody. Just we don't follow it. But even if the Constitution was perfect, it would still be changed here and there. Please tell me you don't deny that?

And if the founding fathers had relied on God's word instead of their own reasoning, then the constitution they would have constructed would not need to change.

As it pertains to Liberty and who the government is or isn't, the founders were wrong as well as Enyart's Constitution of America.

 

[PatriotBeliever]

Who changes God's word?


And if the founding fathers had relied on God's word instead of their own reasoning, then the constitution they would have constructed would not need to change.

The next best thing is when Christ returns and we live in a Theocracy. Do you know of another that has worked any better? If you people are going to promote extreme Dominion Theology, why don't you take it to it's natural, logical conclusion and start your insurrection now. What are you waiting for? You do realize that the theology you are ascribing to also presupposes that Jesus cannot return until the earth is completely converted by force? (I state this to help those that are not aware of what these folks believe in.) Everyone not familiar may want to google Dominion Theology and Theonomy, of course there are many variations of it. The most extreme of them care nothing of American constitutionalism or any other law of man for that matter.