|
Post by benjoseph on Nov 30, 2009 20:44:36 GMT -5
"whatever force is legitimate to defend the life of a born child is legitimate to defend the life of an unborn child." True? False? Other thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 22, 2009 20:11:11 GMT -5
Here are some interesting quotes that I thought might be relevant to this topic. They are from "Skeletons of a Course of Theological Lectures" by Charles Finney.
In what cases human legislation imposes moral obligation. 1. Not when it requires what is inconsistent with moral law. 2. Not when it is arbitrary, or not founded in right reason. 3. But it always imposes moral obligation when it is in accordance with moral law, or the law of nature.
In what cases Human Legislation is valid, and in what cases it is null and void. 1. Human legislation is valid, when called for by the necessities--that is--by the nature, relations and circumstances of the people. 2. Just that kind and degree of human legislation which are demanded by the necessities of the people are obligatory. 3. Human legislation is utterly null and void in all other cases whatsoever; and I may add, that divine legislation would be equally null and void; unless demanded by the nature, relations, and necessities of human beings. Consequently human beings can never legislate in opposition to the moral law. Whatever is inconsistent with supreme love to God and equal love to our neighbor, can by no possibility be obligatory.
In what cases we are bound to disobey Human Governments. 1. We may yield obedience, when the thing required does not involve a violation of moral obligation. 2. We are bound to yield obedience, when legislation is in accordance with the law of nature. 3. We are bound to obey when the thing required has no moral character in itself; upon the principle, that obedience, in this case, is a less evil than revolution or misrule. But-- 4. We are bound in all cases to disobey, when human legislation contravenes moral law, or invades the rights of conscience.
|
|
|
Post by tonyholland on Dec 29, 2009 0:20:37 GMT -5
Benjoseph......To clarify your question, are you asking if it is permissable to use deadly force against those who perform abortions under a "defense of others in mortal danger" defense?
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 29, 2009 2:26:36 GMT -5
Benjoseph......To clarify your question, are you asking if it is permissible to use deadly force against those who perform abortions under a "defense of others in mortal danger" defense? Not exactly. I'm asking whether permissible force should be the same when defending born and unborn children or not. The options in those terms are: True. Permissible force should be the same when defending born and unborn children. or False. Permissible force should not be the same when defending born and unborn children. I mean 'should' in the context of God-given, inalienable rights and duties rather than human legislation. In other words, in God's eyes, is permissible force when defending born and unborn children the same? or different? and why? I'm also interested in understanding how civil law relates to the right and/or duty to defend others. Particularly, can civil law supersede a duty to defend the helpless? If so, how, why, when, etc.
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Dec 29, 2009 2:29:50 GMT -5
I did not realize Tony had any concern at all for the unborn after giving full support to a candidate who gives his full support to murdering them.
|
|
|
Post by tonyholland on Dec 31, 2009 18:00:57 GMT -5
I did not realize Tony had any concern at all for the unborn after giving full support to a candidate who gives his full support to murdering them. You still whining about the election? Come on man.....Obama won, time to move on now ;D
|
|
|
Post by tonyholland on Dec 31, 2009 18:08:20 GMT -5
Benjoseph......To clarify your question, are you asking if it is permissible to use deadly force against those who perform abortions under a "defense of others in mortal danger" defense? Not exactly. I'm asking whether permissible force should be the same when defending born and unborn children or not. The options in those terms are: True. Permissible force should be the same when defending born and unborn children. or False. Permissible force should not be the same when defending born and unborn children. I mean 'should' in the context of God-given, inalienable rights and duties rather than human legislation. In other words, in God's eyes, is permissible force when defending born and unborn children the same? or different? and why? I'm also interested in understanding how civil law relates to the right and/or duty to defend others. Particularly, can civil law supersede a duty to defend the helpless? If so, how, why, when, etc. The reason that I ask is that it is that you are looking for an A or B answer to something that is much more complex. For example, if someone had a knife and was about to stab an innocent child, I would think absolutley nothing of using whatever force was necessary to stop them. on the other hand If I saw an abortion Dr on the way to his practice where he would be performing abortions, I would probably not use force to stop them because it would be agains the law to do so. It seems like the debate you are looking to create is "why would we not use equal force to stop both". Interested to see the responses on this.
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Dec 31, 2009 18:36:26 GMT -5
You may call it whining if you would like but the Bible calls it crying out against innocent blood being shed.
You are so carnal and lukewarm you do not even see things from a Biblical perspective anymore. How sad.
Repent and get back to your first love you lukewarm, backslidden, spineless coward!
Sin makes men cowards (Proverbs 28:1).
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Jan 1, 2010 14:33:53 GMT -5
The reason that I ask is that it is that you are looking for an A or B answer to something that is much more complex. For example, if someone had a knife and was about to stab an innocent child, I would think absolutley nothing of using whatever force was necessary to stop them. on the other hand If I saw an abortion Dr on the way to his practice where he would be performing abortions, I would probably not use force to stop them because it would be agains the law to do so. It seems like the debate you are looking to create is "why would we not use equal force to stop both". Interested to see the responses on this. The question does not oversimplify anything because people can explain why they said 'yes' or 'no'. Do you believe civil law can supersede moral law? (yes/no, why/why not)
|
|
|
Post by tonyholland on Jan 5, 2010 10:42:04 GMT -5
Yak, yak, yak. ;D Question for ya Micah. Is it now any easier or more difficult to get an abortion than it was before Obama was in office and there was a Republican president and majority in Congress? You can yak about late-term and partial birth if you want to, but bottom line is that the conservative party has had ample opportunity to introduce legislation to ban the whole horrible practice in it's entirety. They do not, because they will lose women voters. Even McCain stopped short of totally denouncing the practice by using the good old "it should be left up to the States" sidestep. Why weren't you screaming from the rooftops when Bush was in office that he needed to do more to eliminate abortion?
I do believe that it does. I do not believe that it should.
In the case you are describing though (well, you really haven't described it in detail, but let me know if I am reading between the lines incorrectly) it would also be immoral to kill a person performing an abortion. While it is that person performing the procedure, the real killer is the mother who has made the decision to have the abortion.
My belief is that abortion should be banned, except in the case that it is neccessary to save the Mother's life, and anyone performing an illegal abortion should be held accountable by the authorities. I also believe that the Mother should have to stand trial for murder.
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Jan 5, 2010 15:03:02 GMT -5
I have always been crying out against abortion. Even when Bush was in office.
I don't preach politics. I preach the Bible.
You are the one who has allowed politics to govern you instead of the Bible.
What a cop out on your part.
You are so cold and indifferent it is pathetic.
|
|
|
Post by tonyholland on Jan 6, 2010 14:18:40 GMT -5
I have always been crying out against abortion. Even when Bush was in office. Agreed, but not once can I remember you calling Bush to task for not doing something about it. You have certainly done so with Obama. Why have both Presidents not recieved the same treatment from you? Perhaps you are a little "lukewarm" when it comes to the Republican Party? Hmmmmm?
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Jan 8, 2010 23:04:35 GMT -5
I do believe that it does. I do not believe that it should. In the case you are describing though (well, you really haven't described it in detail, but let me know if I am reading between the lines incorrectly) it would also be immoral to kill a person performing an abortion. While it is that person performing the procedure, the real killer is the mother who has made the decision to have the abortion. My belief is that abortion should be banned, except in the case that it is neccessary to save the Mother's life, and anyone performing an illegal abortion should be held accountable by the authorities. I also believe that the Mother should have to stand trial for murder. It's not that I'm asking anyone to "read between the lines" and realize my questions are substantially relevant to the morality of killing baby-killers to save babies. My point is not to disguise the topic. The topic of my questions is not whether it is right or wrong to kill baby-killers, but whether we should be consistent in our decisions to defend born vs unborn children. For instance, if you are a pacifist then you could easily say yes "whatever force is legitimate etc..." because you believe no force is legitimate for both born and unborn children. But if you are not a pacifist and you believe it is your duty to defend innocent children then what? If you believe that legislators can pass a law that overrides your duty to defend the helpless then would you apply that principle to born and unborn children equally? That is, if the murder of born children was called "legal" by the government, would that override your duty or right to defend them with force? If not then why does it in the case of unborn children. But if yes, then why? And how do we know when civil law can truly change our God-given rights and duties? Isn't that contrary not only to the bible but the U.S. constitution and common sense as well?
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Jan 11, 2010 17:10:27 GMT -5
Bush did not openly support abortion.
Obama did.
You gave your full support to a presidential candidate who fully supports abortion.
I am calling you to task hypocrite.
You don't know everything I have said about Bush.
I am not a big Bush supporter. Way to cop out again hypocrite.
I am a Jesus Christ follower. The Bible written by him calls shedding innocent blood murder.
If abortion is not that I do not know what is.
If you did not profess to be a Christian I would not be so hard on you.
Murderers go to the lake of fire (Revelation 21:8).
Shame on you.
|
|
|
Post by tonyholland on Jan 13, 2010 14:45:07 GMT -5
Bush did not openly support abortion. Obama did. You gave your full support to a presidential candidate who fully supports abortion. I am calling you to task hypocrite. You don't know everything I have said about Bush. I am not a big Bush supporter. Way to cop out again hypocrite. I am a Jesus Christ follower. The Bible written by him calls shedding innocent blood murder. If abortion is not that I do not know what is. If you did not profess to be a Christian I would not be so hard on you. Murderers go to the lake of fire (Revelation 21:8). Shame on you. First....Ben, apologies for hijacking your thread. We will move this to a new one if needed. Micah, I thought you would be the first to think that if a person with the power to stop something did not, then they would be supporting it? I also stand corrected....I don't know what you have said about Bush outside of the forum. What I do know is that, at least on this forum, you seem to put the responsibility of abortion squarely on Obama's shoulders. On the other hand, I can't find any record of you calling Bush to task for the same. Micah, you really have some growing to do.....It seems that everytime someone doesn't agree with you, that you launch into a tantrum calling the other person unchristian. You need to learn that your opinion does not neccessarily equal the final and correct interpetation of God's will.
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Jan 14, 2010 15:02:21 GMT -5
Show me all the multiple times when someone has not agreed with my opinion on something I have called them unchristian.
Seems you are thinking of Dan Lirette and not me. Dan repeatedly called me unchristian for silly things and I did not retaliate.
I am not putting the responsibility of abortion squarely on Obama's shoulders. Where do you get that assumption?
Is he not openly supportive of abortion or not?
Is abortion murder or not?
Did you not support him or not?
Do murderers go to heaven or hell?
I have never said Bush was a Christian. He did not openly support abortion as Obama does.
As far as I can tell at this point Bush is headed towards the same hell as Obama and yourself only I think you will have different degrees of punishment.
You need to wake up Tony. I believe you are in grave danger.
I believed Bush was against abortion. Yes I wish he had done more. He was not up for relection.
That is a far cry from giving your open support (as you did on this forum) of a president who is flagrantly pro abortion and pro homosexual agenda.
You keep trying to dance around the issue of your hypocrisy of claiming to be a Christian while voting for a murderer.
I wish multitudes of Christians had not voted for independent candidates because I think it was a wasted vote. However, I do respect them for at least voting for someone they knew was a genuine moral conservative.
An informed person like yourself voting for someone like Obama and then claiming to be a Christian is pure hypocrisy.
|
|
|
Post by tonyholland on Jan 14, 2010 16:59:53 GMT -5
This post is a good example of what I was talking about.
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Jan 16, 2010 13:27:43 GMT -5
No it is not an example of what you are talking about.
You said above I repeatedly label others as non Christian for disagreements on opinion.
I am not labeling you as non Christian for a disagreement on an opinion.
I am labeling you as a non Christian for openly supporting abortion.
Abortion is murder. That is not my opinion.
Murderers do not go to heaven. That is not my opinion.
Murderers are not Christians. That is not my opinion.
People who support murdering innocent babies are not Christians. That is not my opinion.
Again Tony please show me where I am labeling others as non Christians over differences of opinion.
If you cannot then take the statement back and deal with the real issue here.
|
|