Thanks Bob

[CRASH]

Allen Keys is an occultist not a christian. No one who believes that works saves is a christian

occultist? evidence?

 

[elected4ever]

occultist? evidence?

Reference RCC doctrine. No one is saved in this life but you are judged as to your works at judgment. Case closed.

 

[drbrumley]

Keyes is a catholic?

 

[elected4ever]

Keyes is a catholic?

Yes.

 

[CRASH]

Reference RCC doctrine. No one is saved in this life but you are judged as to your works at judgment. Case closed.

So no Catholic is Christian and they are occultists?
That is a stretch.

 

[drbrumley]

doc, if you thought Paul was going to constitutionally protect the unborn, then in what way would he be making it a state issue?

He makes it a state issue when he says "one size doesn't fit all."

While I do agree he is correct in saying this about some issues, he is wrong here as it relates to abortion. I am not sure, but I really doubt he would write or support a bill that says Georgia residents are allowed to murder an adult, but Florida law says that would be illegal. A true states rights example.

Just as in the slavery issue.

But the difference it seems is Slavery was not constitutional at any time.

 

[elected4ever]

So no Catholic is Christian and they are occultists?
That is a stretch.

When a person believes they are not saved and can never be saved, Is that person a christian?

 

[Adam]

A sad history lesson that most Christians ignore...

Millions of babies have died because of an illegal, poorly conceived, knee-jerk anti-abortion strategy at the federal level and these Christians will answer to God for what they have wrought.

In 1970, Norma McCovey sued in the state court of Texas for the "right" to abort a baby. The court ruled in Mccovey's favor, however, the state court refused to overturn state laws against abortion in Texas. The state court only permitted her to have the right to abort her own baby in her own personal situation.

Not satisfied with their limited victory, McCovey's lawyers asked the federal supreme court to hear their appeal. If the federal courts had stayed out of it according to constitutional law, only McCovey would have been able to have an abortion... not even every woman in Texas, let alone the entire nation. Only McCovey.

Christians around America, in an ill conceived and illegal attempt at getting instant gratification regardless of the cost, supported the supreme court's hearing the case in the hopes that they could subvert the constitution and by doing so, stamp out abortion forever.

Roe v Wade was born, and the case backfired.

Thanks in large part to American Christians, the supreme court did hear the case but didn't give us the ruling we wanted. As a result, instead of one woman having one abortion, tens of millions of babies have been slaughtered for decades.

Oops.

Since that tragic day, Christians have repeatedly tried to same illegal, incompetent, unconstitutional tactics and suffered setback after setback for three decades. Babies continue to die while we sail ignorantly down the road to statism, stupidly hoping that the very government that allows the murders will somehow magically switch sides.

The American church will answer to God for the murder of these children and for deliberately subverting the constitutional law that could have saved them.

But wait... it gets worse...

Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota and South Dakota have already passed laws outlawing abortion which are now on the books, but until the federal decision - the federal decision that Christians on this forum so desperately pushed for - is overturned these laws cannot take effect. Thanks largely to the incompetence of American Christians who wanted the federal government to illegally step into a state case, millions of babies are dying in these states who would otherwise have lived.

We've thrown away millions of lives on our arrogant, illegal tactics that have had forty years to produce results yet accomplish nothing.

These people will one day stand before God and answer for that and for their deception of God's people, and God will be in no mood to hear their lame double-
talk answers.

But wait, it gets worse...

And now, when Ron Paul wants to overturn Roe v Wade and return the decision to
the states where it lawfully belongs and where at least six states can immediately outlaw abortion, Christians on this forum call him a "child murderer" and do everything in their power to oppose his candidacy?

Its no wonder the world thinks that Christians are idiots.

sopwith, thanks for your comments. I'll re-read them and post later.

How did you find this site?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Allen Keys is an occultist not a christian. No one who believes that works saves is a christian

:rotfl:

 

[Adam]

A sad history lesson that most Christians ignore...

Millions of babies have died because of an illegal, poorly conceived, knee-jerk anti-abortion strategy at the federal level and these Christians will answer to God for what they have wrought.

In 1970, Norma McCovey sued in the state court of Texas for the "right" to abort a baby. The court ruled in Mccovey's favor, however, the state court refused to overturn state laws against abortion in Texas. The state court only permitted her to have the right to abort her own baby in her own personal situation.

Not satisfied with their limited victory, McCovey's lawyers asked the federal supreme court to hear their appeal. If the federal courts had stayed out of it according to constitutional law, only McCovey would have been able to have an abortion... not even every woman in Texas, let alone the entire nation. Only McCovey.

Christians around America, in an ill conceived and illegal attempt at getting instant gratification regardless of the cost, supported the supreme court's hearing the case in the hopes that they could subvert the constitution and by doing so, stamp out abortion forever.

Roe v Wade was born, and the case backfired.

Thanks in large part to American Christians, the supreme court did hear the case but didn't give us the ruling we wanted. As a result, instead of one woman having one abortion, tens of millions of babies have been slaughtered for decades.

Oops.

Since that tragic day, Christians have repeatedly tried to same illegal, incompetent, unconstitutional tactics and suffered setback after setback for three decades. Babies continue to die while we sail ignorantly down the road to statism, stupidly hoping that the very government that allows the murders will somehow magically switch sides.

The American church will answer to God for the murder of these children and for deliberately subverting the constitutional law that could have saved them.

But wait... it gets worse...

Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota and South Dakota have already passed laws outlawing abortion which are now on the books, but until the federal decision - the federal decision that Christians on this forum so desperately pushed for - is overturned these laws cannot take effect. Thanks largely to the incompetence of American Christians who wanted the federal government to illegally step into a state case, millions of babies are dying in these states who would otherwise have lived.

We've thrown away millions of lives on our arrogant, illegal tactics that have had forty years to produce results yet accomplish nothing.

These people will one day stand before God and answer for that and for their deception of God's people, and God will be in no mood to hear their lame double-
talk answers.

But wait, it gets worse...

And now, when Ron Paul wants to overturn Roe v Wade and return the decision to
the states where it lawfully belongs and where at least six states can immediately outlaw abortion, Christians on this forum call him a "child murderer" and do everything in their power to oppose his candidacy?

Its no wonder the world thinks that Christians are idiots.

Thanks for your comments. I'll re-read them and post a response later.

On another note, how did you find this forum?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Doc thanks for the thread! :up:

 

[Granite]

He makes it a state issue when he says "one size doesn't fit all."

While I do agree he is correct in saying this about some issues, he is wrong here as it relates to abortion. I am not sure, but I really doubt he would write or support a bill that says Georgia residents are allowed to murder an adult, but Florida law says that would be illegal. A true states rights example.

Just as in the slavery issue.

But the difference it seems is Slavery was not constitutional at any time.

Well one size doesn't and it should be a state issue.

 

[Nick M]

Ron Paul is wrong on many key points, not just his belief in authority flowing uphill.

Glad to see the doc come around on this, maybe he can now see why authority is for those on top, in all areas.

 

[Nick M]

+1 for being a man and admitting a mistake. We all make them.

 

[PatriotBeliever]

Hi ya folks.

I took a little time for myself lately and really haven't been on. Did some more researching and listening to Ron Paul. Called his Congressional office to speak to him, of course he was busy but did have the opportunity to speak to his chief of staff...
...He most definitely is pro abortion state by state.

DRBrumley

DRBrumley, I'm sure many people would be very interested in exactly what he said (maybe the name for starters) someone may care to verify the quote. Did they actually say "yea, Dr. Paul is pro abortion, state by state"? I suspect not.

sopwith21 is completely correct. We Christians want the federal government to fix this illegal law when it is what legalized it in the first place. I'll just post my quotes over from where I have dealt with this issue in extensively at truthtalklive.com

I never said the Constitution forbids the “legislating” of abortion. In fact, I have acknowledged again and again that it protects life the way it is written, it’s fundamental to freedom. The point is where the authority is placed to enforce and punish abortion as a crime. Because it has been misapplied, we have Roe v. Wade and other pro abortion rulings making abortion federally legal.

How is it then, that we can argue against returning the authority of enforcing the protection of life to the states where, constitutionally it belongs? States must be allowed to outlaw abortion, not the federal government - they have already spoken and no conservative force has moved to strike it down effectively. Standing on sidewalks one hour a year is not going to do it. Having a Republican/”Conservative” controlled Supreme Court is not doing it and six years of “pro-life” Republican control of the entire federal government did not do it either.

The “role of government” discussion usually comes up when people have been falsely taught that scripture somehow admonishes blind loyalty to any earthly authority (based on misapplying Romans 13 for example). Our representative republic is unique in history, is based on biblical ideals, but most believers have no idea what that implies in the way of their role and responsibility in that representative government.

My “advocacy” for Ron Paul elevates the Constitution to it’s proper place, the law of the land, and based on God’s word, you are correct… we must follow it… or amend it.

The other problem with your statement is your implication that somehow the Federal government is capable of protecting the life of the unborn human. I propose the proof against that is what we currently have abortion is legal right now. Why is it so hard to acknowledge that the federal government is currently proving the point that it cannot and will not protect the life of the unborn - Abortion is legal right now, in today’s America at the federal level, because it becomes more difficult to effectively influence the federal government enough to prevent the Supreme Court from judicial activism that invented the law we have (Roe). This is the issue, not whether individual states “may” legalize abortion. The founders were mindful of the inability of a large centralized government to protect the most basic unalienable rights of man, thus the states were where they placed the ability to do just that.

You can hypothetical any view to death. Like the liberal arguments “what if a woman gets pregnant by no fault of her own by XYZ… (fill in the blank)”. It goes on and on and on. But abortion is still murder. This is what the “CA and NY would have mass murder of babies…” hypotheticals sound like. Hey maybe we should count on Jack Bauer from 24 to end abortion, one presidential hopeful has suggested calling him to stop FoxNews’ fictional nuke from going off. But I digress…

Look, Anonymous… neither myself nor Ron Paul (I believe) would obey man or man’s law over God, I explicitly have stated that, in my case, with scripture.

The FACT is that the alternative to States having the right to outlaw abortion, is what we already have, federally legalized abortion, why shouldn’t we assert your logic right now? You and I live in a country right now where it is federally legal to murder babies, right now. Why don’t we all follow God’s law rather than man’s and physically stop them ourselves? Why don’t churches gather outside the killer’s businesses and physically stop them? Tear the places down? I could understand not wanting to do that and look for a “solution”, but to keep implying that the solution lies at the federal level is more crazy than that. Your solution already deemed abortion legal. Don’t you see the problem (besides personal immorality)? The federal government proves in inability to protect life every chance it gets. What happens in national disasters and crisis’s? The local authorities do infinitely better at them than the federal agencies. States prosecute all other capital crimes because the federal government could never get through them all. You think enforcing and prosecuting abortionists would be any different? You would need a whole new agency.

If you don’t allow states to be authorized to outlaw it, it will not change. You’ll keep waiting on a “pro-life” President to appoint “pro-life” judges, but wait we tried that, in fact we still have that. Guess what, abortion is still legal.

Why are abortion clinics and abortionists allowed to continue killing more than 4,000 babies a day today? Because your federal government, which you want to trust to prevent it rather than the states, currently requires that states allow the abortions. So you are waiting on a legal solution to stop the legal abortions by the federal government, from the federal government? What insanity.
Passing the Sanctity of Life Act is currently the only legislation in Congress that would attempt to do it. It has to limit the Supreme Court’s ability and only Congress has that power. Read way up in the thread where I explain this. Show me another legal action, at the federal level that currently has the ability to do this. Anyone. Any bills out there pending? No. Ask yourself why.

Goriller, the bill does not say “REQUIRED” because the Congress should not have that authority and the Constitution already REQUIRES” it that protection. But a strict reading of the legislation does not give authority beyond to “protect lives of unborn children”. Good grief, how this would not be better than the current “states have NO authority to protect the unborn” is beyond me. Even with all of your worst case scenarios, you would go from and entire nation of abortions to whatever number of states you guys keep theorizing would become the country’s abortion mills. And by the way, if you want to call it baby murdering only when referencing if a state legalized abortion, why not use that terminology consistently, because it is currently nationwide baby murdering (which I agree it is).

I think most here would interpret that a complete abortion ban already exists in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The Supreme Court circumvented this by fiat legislation. The Supreme Court restriction in the above bill is thus required. The enemy is lying to you guys.

Leave the word meaning reversals and double speak to the lawyers. The Sanctity of Life Act would remove the completely unconstitutional Roe v. Wade from effect and would seek to limit the courts on abortion, this is a good thing based on the fact that the Supreme Court has proven it will abuse it’s “power”.

Ron Paul is not running to be your Sunday school teacher - it’s an urban legend.

Guys, agree to pray with me about this. I do and will. Please. I wish the discussion would be this rich in the churches and pulpits.

Goriller, you like Bob, have ignored an entire thread and twenty years of Ron Paul legislation, statements and credible endorsements.

I’ll repeat one more time, the Supreme Court has already ruled in favor of Abortion. Why would you think for a second that they would rule in favor of life against a (hypothetical) pro-abortion state? The current “conservative” court is no different. The supposed conservatives that have been appointed under Bush have even proven that they will rule for abortion (one example - Alito http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=472) How much hard evidence can I pile on one blog vs. the same old statement?

The bill you keep trying to interpret limits the Supreme Court, which is not supposed to be equal in power to the legislative, back to constitutional levels. Your argument places much more faith in men (judges who have a record of pro-abortion rulings) and not God, or the people.

Did the Supreme Court legalize abortion or not?

(answer is obvious) You are denying that the Supreme Court gave us Roe v. Wade with your argument.

Ok, let’s trust it, then, against the founders warnings, the Constitution, scriptural admonition to obey God rather than man, and let the Supreme Court retain the power it has hijacked in our country. Ok, you still have nation wide legalized abortion.

Brilliant.

Please site as much evidence by anyone in government as I have presented on Ron Paul’s undeniable pro-life stance here (despite his “evil” libertarian association) for everyone to see. Please, just one person and the bills, speeches, statements, something. Please

Ron Paul’s record speaks for itself.

Also dug the following up for you: http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst013006.htm

Federalizing Social Policy
Rep. Ron Paul
January 30, 2006

As the Senate prepares to vote on the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito this week, our nation once again finds itself bitterly divided over the issue of abortion. It’s a sad spectacle, especially considering that our founders never intended for social policy to be decided at the federal level, and certainly not by federal courts. It’s equally sad to consider that huge numbers of Americans believe their freedoms hinge on any one individual, Supreme Court justice or not.

Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, but not because the Supreme Court presumed to legalize abortion rather than ban it. Roe was wrongly decided because abortion simply is not a constitutional issue. There is not a word in the text of that document, nor in any of its amendments, that conceivably addresses abortion. There is no serious argument based on the text of the Constitution itself that a federal “right to abortion” exists. The federalization of abortion law is based not on constitutional principles, but rather on a social and political construct created out of thin air by the Roe court.

Under the 9th and 10 amendments, all authority over matters not specifically addressed in the Constitution remains with state legislatures. Therefore the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue. So while Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid.

The notion that an all-powerful, centralized state should provide monolithic solutions to the ethical dilemmas of our times is not only misguided, but also contrary to our Constitution. Remember, federalism was established to allow decentralized, local decision- making by states. Today, however, we seek a federal solution for every perceived societal ill, ignoring constitutional limits on federal power. The result is a federal state that increasingly makes all-or-nothing decisions that alienate large segments of the population.

Why are we so afraid to follow the Constitution and let state legislatures decide social policy? Surely people on both sides of the abortion debate realize that it’s far easier to influence government at the state and local level. The federalization of social issues, originally championed by the left but now embraced by conservatives, simply has prevented the 50 states from enacting laws that more closely reflect the views of their citizens. Once we accepted the federalization of abortion law under Roe, we lost the ability to apply local community standards to ethical issues.

Those who seek a pro-life culture must accept that we will never persuade all 300 million Americans to agree with us. A pro-life culture can be built only from the ground up, person by person. For too long we have viewed the battle as purely political, but no political victory can change a degraded society. No Supreme Court ruling by itself can instill greater respect for life. And no Supreme Court justice can save our freedoms if we don’t fight for them ourselves.

Roe v. Wade has to be overturned, it hasn't happened even when "conservative Christian's" supposedly controlled the entire federal government. The federal government will not get this right folks.

I'll pray for you all.
Watch Ron Paul with David Brody of CBN from Sunday:
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/254048.aspx

 

[PatriotBeliever]

Where does that end?

Where does that end?

Ron Paul is wrong on many key points, not just his belief in authority flowing uphill.

Glad to see the doc come around on this, maybe he can now see why authority is for those on top, in all areas.

Nick, "authority is for those on top, in all areas"? Where does that stop for you? I know where the founding fathers stood, they had a "line in the sand". Do you? Where is it?
And exactly which other areas do you mean? Are you talking about privacy, religion, education, self defense, etc.? Who has the authority over these areas, I mean after God, of course. Can a president tell you where, when and how you can worship, send your kids to school, what you do in your home, whether or not and how you can protect yourself from an armed gunman?

Just wondering where it starts and stops for you.

 

[elected4ever]

DRBrumley, I'm sure many people would be very interested in exactly what he said (maybe the name for starters) someone may care to verify the quote. Did they actually say "yea, Dr. Paul is pro abortion, state by state"? I suspect not.

sopwith21 is completely correct. We Christians want the federal government to fix this illegal law when it is what legalized it in the first place. I'll just post my quotes over from where I have dealt with this issue in extensively at truthtalklive.com









Roe v. Wade has to be overturned, it hasn't happened even when "conservative Christian's" supposedly controlled the entire federal government. The federal government will not get this right folks.

I'll pray for you all.
Watch Ron Paul with David Brody of CBN from Sunday:
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/254048.aspx

Roe v Wade was properly decided and cannot be overturned by the court. It takes a constitutional amendment. The Overturning of Roe v Wade by the court is a myth.

 

[PatriotBeliever]

Roe v Wade was properly decided and cannot be overturned by the court. It takes a constitutional amendment. The Overturning of Roe v Wade by the court is a myth.

Well no (few would argue that here), Roe v. Wade was not properly decided.
But you are correct that the overturning of it by the court is a myth. This has been my point often. To expect the court to overturn it is a joke. Christians will be waiting until Jesus returns for that (and I think many are o.k. with just that) My point as you can see in the lengthy quotes I included and others I didn't is that the Sanctity of Life Act would do that almost immediately. Paul alludes to that in the interview with Brody.

 

[elected4ever]

Well no (few would argue that here), Roe v. Wade was not properly decided.
But you are correct that the overturning of it by the court is a myth. This has been my point often. To expect the court to overturn it is a joke. Christians will be waiting until Jesus returns for that (and I think many are o.k. with just that) My point as you can see in the lengthy quotes I included and others I didn't is that the Sanctity of Life Act would do that almost immediately. Paul alludes to that in the interview with Brody.

I don't think so because it would still leave the states with the option of aborting babies for starters and the life that the child would have under the act would sell have to yield to the rights of the mother constitutionally. It does nothing to change the fundamental law.

 

[kmoney]

He makes it a state issue when he says "one size doesn't fit all."

While I do agree he is correct in saying this about some issues, he is wrong here as it relates to abortion. I am not sure, but I really doubt he would write or support a bill that says Georgia residents are allowed to murder an adult, but Florida law says that would be illegal. A true states rights example.

Just as in the slavery issue.

But the difference it seems is Slavery was not constitutional at any time.

Are you saying there is a difference between murder and abortion?