Thanks Bob

[sopwith21]

Is it your position then that Jesus did not support the death penalty for homosexuals?

Yes. Are you suggesting we murder them?

If so, can you provide the Scripture that explicitly states that Jesus supported the abolishment of the Mosaic Law during his earthly ministry?

No. But the fact that he opposed murdering people who commit private sins is evident in many passages, including the Samaritan woman with five husbands. The crowd had gathered to stone her and it was Jesus who stopped them. The Mosaic law forbade the drinking of wine, but Jesus turned water into it. The law said that eating pork was illegal, but Jesus said that all foods were clean. Jesus harvested farm fields on the sabbath in violation of the law. He healed when his government told him not to. Shall we go on?

Jesus supported and upheld the Law throughout His earthly ministry in Israel.

Jesus was the biggest law breaker in Israel. He came to set men free, not to enslave them.

However, we stray from the original point... Jesus never once supported the use of government violence against a person for a private sin. That is a fact you have not denied.

 

[sopwith21]

the life has to be born and the person has to be born in order to have legal standing.

That's a nice opinion, but it is not found in constitutional law. The constitution explicitly protects the right to life. And if a fetus does not have life, then just ignore it... it will go away.

 

[sopwith21]

Why is it a fantasy that 75% of states will agree to outlaw abortion, but you want to leave it up to the states to outlaw it?

In the last thirty-five years of US history there has been a total of one constitutional amendment. But your state will pass at least a thousand pages of new laws this year alone.

Do the math.

I think that if six states outlaw abortion overnight, then people will drive an hour or so to the next state and still get their abortions.

Then we might as well just keep it legal, right? C'mon... if we outlaw it nationally, people will just drive to Canada. All abortion is legal there, you know.

 

[S†ephen]

Then we might as well just keep it legal, right? C'mon... if we outlaw it nationally, people will just drive to Canada. All abortion is legal there, you know.

In the eloquent words of Aston Kutcher from that 70's show.

"Oh, Burn!":chuckle:

 

[sopwith21]

every US President, and every US Congress, and every SCOTUS justice since 1973 agrees that they had they authority to do what they did, nothing short of a Constitutional amendment can change who is holding the power right now!

False. Adherence to the constitution as supported by Ron Paul would send the issue back to the states where victories in at least 10-15 states could occur immediately. Many other federal issues have been sent back to the states before; this is not unique.

 

[PKevman]

Mr. Kevin

Aside from party affiliations (as Ron is now with the Republicans) in what ways do you believe Alan is better than Ron?

Let me give you some reasons why:

Alan Keyes on the issues

Alan Keyes on America's moral challenge

Alan Keyes on Income Taxes

Alan Keyes on homosexuality

Alan Keyes on the Death Penalty

Alan Keyes on the 2nd Amendment

Alan Keyes on Religious Freedom

 

[drbrumley]

C'mon... if we outlaw it nationally, people will just drive to Canada. All abortion is legal there, you know.

Attack Canada. Attack! Kill them socialist pigs says the high and mighty neocon.

 

[S†ephen]

Hey Mr. Kevin,

Thanks for the videos. I still have a few questions.

1- Does Alan intend to ban homosexuality or eliminate all government involvement in marriage.

2- Ron Paul openly stated he will eliminate several organizations such as the IRS and stop the printing presses immediately. Where does Keys stand on this? All the video seemed to cover was him talking about a tax switch as opposed to tax elimination.

3-Does Alan intend to continue to use the Federal government as the most powerful branch (a blatant violation of the constitution) or does he intend to return power back to the states?

I really don't see many differences between Alan and Ron except for the fact that Ron has a better shot at the Presidency. I would think our votes would be worth a little bit more for Ron Paul unless I missed a major difference between him and Alan.

Looking forward to tomorrow,

Stephen

 

[drbrumley]

So what do you think stops you from fully supporting a guy like Alan Keyes? We don't have a perfect politician unfortunately, but Keyes is a good man I believe.

Let's see, one reason is he believes we as a nation should pay blacks for thier sufferings during slavery. He said so in his senate run vs Obama.

Secondly, he has no plan for abolishing the federal reserve

Thirdly, he plays right into the hands of the elites when he says this government of America is the boss. They take it a step further and say we rule the world, hence our misguided wars for the last 50 years.

Among others.

 

[S†ephen]

I would be for whatever works in stopping the killing of innocent children. I am just not sold that this is the correct strategy.

That's cool. What strategy do you think is best?

 

[Lighthouse]

Yes. Are you suggesting we murder them?

No. The suggestion is that we follow the law God commanded, and have them executed for the crime of homosexuality. Legally, by the government.

No. But the fact that he opposed murdering people who commit private sins is evident in many passages, including the Samaritan woman with five husbands. The crowd had gathered to stone her and it was Jesus who stopped them.

Wrong. The Samaritan woman was not the same as the woman caught in adultery. Secondly, the Bible never even said that the Samaritan woman was guilty of any crime worthy of death according to the Mosaic law. Also, she was not under that law. Whether or not the Samaritans followed any of the laws found in the Mosaic law is irrelevant to this discussion. The woman caught in adultery was brought to Jesus, who was not a recognized officer of the law. Also, the man was not brought as well, which means the men who brought the woman were breaking the law as well. And when Jesus stood there were no witnesses, so for Jesus to then condemn her, He would have been breaking the law. Also, the Jews were not actually allowed to execute anyone, at that time, according to Roman law. That means that the Romans wouldn't let them. That's why the Romans had to execute Jesus, because they wouldn't let the Jews execute their own criminals.

Then Pilate said to them, “You take Him and judge Him according to your law.”
Therefore the Jews said to him, “It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death,”
-John 18:31

The Mosaic law forbade the drinking of wine, but Jesus turned water into it.

Where does the Mosaic law forbid the drinking of wine? Jesus also drank wine. Which would be a better argument for you, if you weren't wrong.

The law said that eating pork was illegal, but Jesus said that all foods were clean.

When did Jesus say this? Hint: He said it to Peter, well after the cross. And still, that was a ceremonial law. Jesus still never said it was OK to murder, rape or steal, did He?

Jesus harvested farm fields on the sabbath in violation of the law. He healed when his government told him not to. Shall we go on?

Jesus in no way broke the law. He defied the misinterpretations of the Pharisees, but He never broke the actual law.

Jesus was the biggest law breaker in Israel. He came to set men free, not to enslave them.

See above.

However, we stray from the original point... Jesus never once supported the use of government violence against a person for a private sin. That is a fact you have not denied.

It is not a fact. It is a lie. And Paul advocated it very clearly in Romans 13.

 

[PKevman]

Yes. Are you suggesting we murder them?

No not at all. The death penalty enforced by the government is not murder. The Bible is full of support for the death penalty from Moses to Jesus to Paul.

No. But the fact that he opposed murdering people who commit private sins is evident in many passages, including the Samaritan woman with five husbands. The crowd had gathered to stone her and it was Jesus who stopped them.

Whoa bud. You have confused two different people here. You are confusing the Samaritan woman who had many husbands with the woman caught in adultery. They're two different women and two completely different circumstances.

The Mosaic law forbade the drinking of wine, but Jesus turned water into it. The law said that eating pork was illegal, but Jesus said that all foods were clean. Jesus harvested farm fields on the sabbath in violation of the law. He healed when his government told him not to. Shall we go on?

Something very important that you are missing in this equation is that God has given different instructions at different periods of time to different people. We are not under the dietary laws (for example) any longer today in the Body of Christ. Those were instructions solely given to Israel for that dispensation.

But there are also different tiers of law. And God's moral law has never changed. The moral law for men can be summed up by "Love your neighbor". You shall not murder has never been repealed by Jesus or Paul. Neither has the death penalty for those who murder. Also Jesus gave the clear answer why it was ok to heal on the sabbath. Because God made the sabbath for man and not man for the Sabbath.

To do good for others supercedes symbolic commands such as the sabbath.

Look at what Jesus said in Matthew 12:9-14

9 Now when He had departed from there, He went into their synagogue. 10 And behold, there was a man who had a withered hand. And they asked Him, saying, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?”—that they might accuse Him.
11 Then He said to them, “What man is there among you who has one sheep, and if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not lay hold of it and lift it out? 12 Of how much more value then is a man than a sheep? Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.” 13 Then He said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” And he stretched it out, and it was restored as whole as the other. 14 Then the Pharisees went out and plotted against Him, how they might destroy Him.

Jesus was the biggest law breaker in Israel.

How so? Jesus kept the law perfectly. He had to in order to be Messiah.

Jesus Himself said:

23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone.

Complete obedience to the Law is what Jesus taught. If He did not follow the Law to the letter as He told the Pharisees they "ought to have done", He would have been an utter hypocrite and unworthy of being our Savior. :think:

Further Galatians 4:4 reveal to us that our Lord was born under the Law.

The reason why you can't provide specific examples of Jesus repealing the Mosaic law is because He did not do so. God was still dealing with Israel as His special people during the time of Christ's earthly ministry. Jesus Himself said:

“I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (Matthew 15:24)

However, we stray from the original point... Jesus never once supported the use of government violence against a person for a private sin. That is a fact you have not denied.

I am sorry then, I must not have been clear. I believe that Jesus supported the death penalty and the following of Mosaic law. Further, I believe the Bible shows us this fact incontrovertibly!

God bless ya buddy!

 

[PKevman]

Attack Canada. Attack! Kill them socialist pigs says the high and mighty neocon.

:rotfl: I wouldn't go that far. I would say that to abolish something because of what Canada is doing is a bad argument though. Even coming from my good friend.

 

[PKevman]

That's cool. What strategy do you think is best?

Well first of all I hope and pray the Lord returns soon.

But should He tarry, I believe that we Christians need to get louder and stronger about reaching the lost for Jesus Christ and getting Godly men into office before it is too late. I believe the government needs to be built around righteousness and justice. If Christians had NOT abdicated their responsibility in government for many, many years, we would not be in the shape we are in today.

Turning it back around is going to be EXTREMELY difficult for any man, but if a Godly man were in leadership in our country then I believe it would make a huge difference. Many good Christians disagree with me, but that is my position and I'm stickin' to it.

 

[PKevman]

No. The suggestion is that we follow the law God commanded, and have them executed for the crime of homosexuality. Legally, by the government.


Wrong. The Samaritan woman was not the same as the woman caught in adultery. Secondly, the Bible never even said that the Samaritan woman was guilty of any crime worthy of death according to the Mosaic law. Also, she was not under that law. Whether or not the Samaritans followed any of the laws found in the Mosaic law is irrelevant to this discussion. The woman caught in adultery was brought to Jesus, who was not a recognized officer of the law. Also, the man was not brought as well, which means the men who brought the woman were breaking the law as well. And when Jesus stood there were no witnesses, so for Jesus to then condemn her, He would have been breaking the law. Also, the Jews were not actually allowed to execute anyone, at that time, according to Roman law. That means that the Romans wouldn't let them. That's why the Romans had to execute Jesus, because they wouldn't let the Jews execute their own criminals.

Then Pilate said to them, “You take Him and judge Him according to your law.”
Therefore the Jews said to him, “It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death,”
-John 18:31


Where does the Mosaic law forbid the drinking of wine? Jesus also drank wine. Which would be a better argument for you, if you weren't wrong.


When did Jesus say this? Hint: He said it to Peter, well after the cross. And still, that was a ceremonial law. Jesus still never said it was OK to murder, rape or steal, did He?


Jesus in no way broke the law. He defied the misinterpretations of the Pharisees, but He never broke the actual law.


See above.


It is not a fact. It is a lie. And Paul advocated it very clearly in Romans 13.

:up: Good post Lighthouse! I think we were on the same wavelength here.

 

[PKevman]

In the eloquent words of Aston Kutcher from that 70's show.

"Oh, Burn!":chuckle:

I don't think so really. Because it is far more an obstacle to have to drive for hours and days on end to go to another country than to drive to the next state over. :think:

 

[sopwith21]

No. The suggestion is that we follow the law God commanded, and have them executed for the crime of homosexuality. Legally, by the government.

Do you have the right to kill homosexuals?

If not, how can you delegate this right to government? How can you delegate a right that you do not possess?

If we really have the right to murder homosexuals, why not just cut out the middle man and do it ourselves?

You can twist between the Mosaic Law and Hebrew Law and nuclear regulations in Finland all day long, but Jesus never supported the use of government violence against people who had not harmed the life or property of another.

 

[sopwith21]

You have confused two different people here. You are confusing the Samaritan woman who had many husbands with the woman caught in adultery. They're two different women and two completely different circumstances.

True. And oddly enough, Jesus didn't kill either of them.

Jesus gave the clear answer why it was ok to heal on the sabbath. Because God made the sabbath for man and not man for the Sabbath.

You're debating the reasons why Jesus broke the law. I'm merely observing that he broke the law.

 

[PatriotBeliever]

Then he knows if the courts abuse their power the constitution can be amended to put them in there place, but he will not call for that. Not ever!

I've already pointed to several occasions where Ron Paul has said he would be o.k. with a constitutional amendment and then I listed a brief summary of how an amendment takes place to illustrate why he has introduced legislation that would end national legal abortion now (the current law of the land... all 50 states... it is legal). An amendment would require the same states' approval that folks here are saying can't be trusted not to legalize it themselves.

 

[sopwith21]

:rotfl: I wouldn't go that far. I would say that to abolish something because of what Canada is doing is a bad argument though.

Why wouldn't you go that far? How can our federal government, which clearly has the military capacity to invade Canada and stop abortion, sit by idly while millions of innocent babies die?

Why are you not calling for an American invasion of Canada to stop abortion? Do you believe that national rights trump human rights?