Home - List All Discussions

Who is Robert Ferguson?

VIOLENCE MUST NOT BE TOLERATED!

by: thecatholicamerican

http://www.armyofgod.com/
http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:h2_2rRfnr2UJ:my.execpc.com/~awallace/sidewalk.htm+abortion+violence+OR+homicide+OR+bombings+%22robert+ferguson%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2
http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:0UlvB6DomcoJ:www.armyofgod.com/JamesKoppDeclaration.html+abortion+violence+OR+homicide+OR+bombings+%22robert+ferguson%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=6
I wonder if the Robert Ferguson here is the same Robert Ferguson that I found elsewhere on the internet?

reply from: faithman

One should never be cavalier about taking life, or starting a war. The declaration of independance says that we tolerate evils while evils are tolerable, but when a government becomes despotic, we the people have the right and the duty to throw it off. If the government sanctioned and protected act of killing womb children is not despotism, and evil at it's worse, then nothing is. Just as the justification of slavery rested upon the denial of personhood to the enslaved, our little citizens in the womb are denied the same. Pro-life has made the same mistake we made in Viet Nam. We have drawn a line we won't go past, and refuse to take this enemy out completely. Every time a clinic goes down in flames, insurance premiums go up and put others out of business. Everytime a baby assasin is forced to not kill children by a 12 gage, many other's select a new career path. When this country went to war for independance, it was by the minority, most thought it wrong to rebel against the governing authority. The "rebel" leaders all had prices on their heads, and a noose if caught. That was over taxes. Our forefathers popped a whole lot of red coats over the price of a tea bag. I guess a tea bag is worth more than a womb child.

reply from: GodsLaw2Live

I've followed the links. I saw the Army of God link to "the official" Paul Hill website. The website has Paul Hill telling us why it is justifiable to gun down an abortionist.
The Robert Ferguson on this forum may be a troll trying to see how extreme some may be. The real Robert Ferguson is way out there in what appears to be the promotion and encouragement of violence.
I do not want to see anyone talking others into acting in a violent manner. There are those that inflame others into acting out violently, such as an Imam in a mosque. We don't want that here.

reply from: RevSpitz

I like Robert Ferguson. Why are you so against him? Are as much against the women that actually murder their children by abortion. You seem to have more sympathy for women that have actually murdered their own child, then for Robert who hasn't hurt anyone. Did you hear about Jesus saying judge righteous judgement? John 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment. You seem to care much more about murdering women than someone who wants to protect the victims.

reply from: thecatholicamerican

Good Reverend, Osama Bin Laden feels justified in the taking of 3000 lives on September 11, 2001. Perhaps you can explain to us how we have been wrong about him as well.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Are you a reverend or is that just your nickname? If you don't mind me asking, does your church have a website?

reply from: faithman

Your premis is totally false. the people in 911 were on no battle field, and were not engage in criminal activity at all. Your post is just plain stupid.

reply from: yoda

Your thread title demands to know the identity of another poster on the forum. I don't think we have any right to demand that posters identify themselves, do we?
Your subtitle is "VIOLENCE MUST NOT BE TOLERATED!"...... how does one not "tolerate" violence in a non-violent way? Or do you intend to use force to stop violence?
Rober is not a "troll" in any sense. He's posted on Delphi antiabortion forums for years, and is an anti-abortion activist. I have found him to be a faithful and dedicated opponent of abortion. Personally, I admire his devotion to the cause, even while I may hold different views from him on some things. He has never displayed any indication of insincerity that I'm aware of. While you may disagree with his views, the proper way to refute them is to state your reasons for disagreeing, not by attacking him personally.
He has as much right to post here as the owners of this forum see fit to allow him to post. Refute his arguments as skillfully as you can, don't fall into the proabort habbit of trying to demonize your opponents.

reply from: thecatholicamerican

I am not demanding to know anything about Robert Ferguson. That is the name that the poster used in this forum. Either it is his identity or the poster wishes to be associated with the name Robert Ferguson in some fashion. The name Robert Ferguson is that of a pro-life proponent that has raised murderers to the level of hero status and rationalised the use of violence.
VIOLENCE MUST NOT BE TOLERATED!
The statement speaks for itself. I reject this person that calls himself a Christian who is clearly nothing more than someone who has found a cause that allows him an outlet for violent expression.

reply from: yoda

If you are not demanding to know his identity, then why ask the question? What sort of answer did you expect to get? Why do you expect any answer at all? Why can't you just address his statements here?
Yes, it does speak for itself...... it says we must stop violence, but it does not say how. I ask you again, do you advocate that we violently stop violence?
Reject him all you like, I don't think he will care. But making more personal attacks on him will not rebute a single thing he has said, will it? You can't defeat his arguments by attacking him.

reply from: RobertFerguson

It is sad that you find it possible to live peacfully with baby kilers.
Personally I have no common ground with such. Neither should you.
There is no proof that defending self or another is evil.
There has been no talk of "vengence" by anyone addressing DEFENSIVE action.
Pay attention and stop the lying implications.

reply from: RobertFerguson

gee, Thank you Yoda for your kind words.
No doubt you will now be attacked.
gee, I would hope so since I have worked in conjuction with Life Dynamics over the years.- and Paul Hill was allowed to have two tapes on Life talk about His efforts.
do not know if Mark Crutcher gave the same opportunity to James Kopp and other or not. I do know that he invested alot of time when the government tried ot demonise Kopp for defensive actions.
It only seems logical that He would support the right to desicuss the same topics as he, himself as offered up fo rdiscussion on LIFE TALK.
Did these same passive aggressive prolife posters attack Crutcher too?
Now wouldn't that be nice! So far only one has made even a small attempt to answer the question posed.

reply from: RobertFerguson

Are you consistant in this? You never answered whether you would use force to defend yourself or your family from an unjust agressor.
And I take it you never served our Nation.
OK. I gues that means that you would just abandoned your assigned post as a huband or father - the protector and provider if your family were attacked.
yep. Your words speak loud and clear.
You judge unrighteously. My views are not simply an outlet for violent expression. They are consistent to the teachings of the Bible as to God's character.
Do you reject that He is the LION of Judah as well as the Lamb? Do you reject that He is the God off WAR?
Do you wish to character assult God too? You do so when you reject His full character.

reply from: RobertFerguson

Thank you Don for these kind words.
I suspect that these prolifers prefer dead babies to dead baby killers.

reply from: RobertFerguson

Faulty analogy.
It is better for you to tell us why those who used force on flight 93 on the same day are heros to Americans when you claim "VIOLENCE MUST NOT BE TOLERATED!" and oppose any mention of the heroics that defend reborn children.

reply from: RobertFerguson

Your premis is totally false. the people in 911 were on no battle field, and were not engage in criminal activity at all. Your post is just plain stupid.
I agree! Just plain stupid!

reply from: RobertFerguson

The same can be said of the "non" violent posters.
I am open to honest dialogue. I have just noticed that such is probably not possible with you.
I have posted questions which would force them all to examine the logic behind their bias positions, Instead they prefer to utilize personal attacks to distract from their reluctance to discuss the reasoning from which their position are in question inthe first place.
Most have yet to answer the question:
Would you defend yourself with lethal force from an unjust agressor who made it clear he was out to kill you?
You are here on an anti-christ agenda aren't you?

reply from: bradensmommy

I find it kind of ironic to see "violence must not be tolerated" when alot of people on this board are pro-life but are in favor of the death penalty.

reply from: RobertFerguson

let's discuss this premise of yours. How is a forceful defense considered falacy if we can apply defense using force to one human and yet not another?
So even you might allow for a forceful defense if it was for you.
That is understandable.
What is being sought is more if you accept to a forceful defense for yourself?
You basically said yes. But these ethics of yours are circumstantial. Situaltional ethics.
The lesson is to learn how we discriminate. Doing so would prevent this lesson. But I can understand why you would not like ot be exposed as being bias to the preborn child.
No! Defensive action has not been proven to be murder in the eyes of God.
Well, there you have it. The preborn are not your loved ones, so you have justified your discrimination against the preborn.
If it's good for you why not the preborn?

reply from: RobertFerguson

I do not consider myself prolife because I accept that God teaches capital punishment for capital crimes. I am also not anti abortion as miscarrages are abortions that hold no penalty. Thanks to Tam and Yoda I consider myself an Anti baby- killing advocate.
I understand what you are saying tho-
These same people might accept the use of violnce in many different ways- capital punishment, assasinations attempts on Hitler, war, flight 93, self defense or defense of their children- others they love- just not in a discussion about defending preborn babies.
They do not love these children enough to accpet the same use of violence.

reply from: RobertFerguson

Not all with the title "Rev" have a church. Some are preachers on the streets or as evangelists.
But a little more careful look at the post would have provided you with what you asked for.

reply from: RobertFerguson

Since you seem to be the resident expert on God's POV, please clarify God's views on defense.
I never made this claim. I said defensive action has not been shown to be murder in God's eyes.
No one has even attempted such. Just made spacious claims based soley on their own imaginations.

Supposedly? You have not really studdied the Bible so as to be a workman who does not need to be ashamed have you?
When did your "supposedly become "according to God"?
Rubber fork?
I do not agree with Mercy then Justice. I think there is reason to believe you're more than disingenous.
An attack by an unuust agreessor who is using deadly force.... Perhasp you read posts like you read the OT?
Your assumptions also known as your "supposing" is wrong.
The honest reader knows I have laid out the specifics and you have come back with your antiChrist horse crap.

reply from: RobertFerguson

Honesty can not be given in a simply yes or no.
It is understand that you would seek less than honesty.
Like any court should, I would have to listen to the defender to judge the act. Which is more than I can say for what you have done to me) Was the act done in defense of another?

reply from: RobertFerguson

Speaking of evasive....
Would you defend yourself with lethal force from an unjust agressor who made it clear he was out to kill you?

reply from: RobertFerguson

So if I asked you if your gender is male? What... your head would explode? (or would your nose just get longer?)
You are indeed disingenous.
you have no real plans to discuss this do you?
yet you attempt to lure a married man into a private chat room.. Do not attempt to do this again. I honor my bride and do not go to private internet chat rooms with women.

reply from: LetFreedomRing

So if I asked you if your gender is male? What... your head would explode? (or would your nose just get longer?)
You are indeed disingenous.
you have no real plans to discuss this do you?
yet you attempt to lure a married man into a private chat room.. Do not attempt to do this again. I honor my bride and do not go to private internet chat rooms with women.
I think concernedparent is a man...

reply from: RobertFerguson

He is employed as an abortionist. You tell me if the act would be in defense of another..........
How can I do this unless I hear from the one who shot him?
Baby killers are known to hang with seedy pople like themselves, perhaps other murderers? It may be a murder.

yet you give me a vague hypothetical where I have no knowledge of who killed him? Is this the type of judgement you would declare righteous?
I suspect so- since you have not offered any arguments that have defeated any of my logic
I am discussing my views. I beleive that defnse that is appropriate to defend BORN humns is appri\orpriate to defend preborn humans.
Where have you been to have missed this?
Perhaps cooking up your "great defeating arguments"? roflombo@u

You have yet to throw out any implication of the claim to be examined.
Me too. I tire more of the prolifers who discriminate.
Now how about an honest and non evasive answer from you?
For the upteenth time.....
Would you defend yourself with lethal force from an unjust agressor who made it clear he was out to kill you?

reply from: RobertFerguson

Worse yet then.
A 'he' that uses a longhaired 'she looking' profile... Yikks.

reply from: LetFreedomRing

Worse yet then.
A 'he' that uses a longhaired 'she looking' profile... Yikks.
It's supposed to be a judge.

reply from: RobertFerguson

You are posturing.
Would you defend yourself with lethal force from an unjust agressor who made it clear he was out to kill you?

reply from: RobertFerguson

you are still avoiding the question. It takes a trial and many reviews fo rthe state to execute someone- this is seldom unjust.
How is letting them live as a murderer and spend etrnity in Hell's fire- loving them at all? Let alone more than yourself. You must really hate yourself.
And how does this address the use of lethal force to save a life?
Preborn children are not as cabpable as the BORN human. They are very helpless and dependant upon others to defend them. Yet society attacks them for this.
Like potentially of gaining dead babies or risking a dead baby killers?
True. The line of questioning is more related to acceptance of the use of force to save a life over the rejection of the use of lethal force to save a life that is thretaened with the death.
Barely...
Nope. I don't play anti Christ games..

reply from: faithman

When one makes such a stupid statement that violence is not to be tolerated, one dishonors all who have defended the freedoms of this land . they make law enforcement an evil insted of a God ordained minister of wrath upon evil, and strip every citizen of the right to defend themselves, and others. It is these kind of idiotic statements that make sure the babies will continue to die.

reply from: RobertFerguson

Right!
It's the type of statement one would expect from a proabort antiAmerican!!!

reply from: InIt4life

Greetings,
Mr. Faithman, I disagree with your statement that the Catholic American is somehow dishonoring the men who "defend the freedoms of this land". God ordained that wicked men would be the lawmakers and authorities...Christians are not ordained to force others to submit to them by force.
Do you not know that for the first 300 years of Christianity, Christians did not serve in the military, and if a man did and was converted they were expected to drop their weapons, prefering death to taking the life of another. If a Christian joined the army after baptism, he was excommunicated.
Christians are not living under the Old Covenant. Jesus Christ brought us a New Covenant, in which we are to love our enemies; he said so himself.
Heretics can pretty much do all kinds of violence to the Bible and historic Christianity, but it is time to stop using the Bible and Christianity for serving your own violent purposes. It is a sin for Christians to use violence to get what they want.
Have you no faith? God is a mighty warrior, but his will for us is not to kill and destroy. How can you claim to know Him if you do not even know these simple things?
The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, gentleness, goodness, meekness, temperance. It is not hatred, biterness, pride, haughtiness, anger, strife, and lack of self-control.

Even if it isn't "murder" to kill an abortion doctor according to the Old Testament, where do you find it even remotely acceptable for a Christian (follower of Christ) to take vengance on another person in the New Testament?
Christians are to get out there and be witnesses, change lives, not be terrorists or snipers.
It is wrong for people to take innocent life, and it is wrong for a true Christian to kill another under any circumstance.
Also, I was not on the forum for more than 3 minutes before I read insults being flung about as if you all have no knoweldge of Jesus' command for us to love each other as he loved us. He says that the world will know us by our love for each other. Now, I am new and do not mean to butt in here and step on anyone's toes. I really hope to get past the insults to your real issues and ideas.
May God bless each one of you and keep you,
in Christ.
P.S. Although it may sound like it, I do not subscribe to the "love gospel" where sin in the life of a believer is tolerated. To be clear, I believe in faith, repentence and baptism for the remission of sins, and that we must live according to the Spirit that dwells in us. If, however, that spirit does not line up with the Holy Spirit, then I think we ought to question what spirit it is.

reply from: faithman


1Ti 1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
1Ti 1:10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
Rom 13:1 ¶ Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
Rom 13:2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
Rom 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
Rom 13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to [execute] wrath upon him that doeth evil.
In the Unted States, We the people are the government. The declaration of independance says that when the government becomes despotic, we have the right and the duty to over throw it. The second amendment of this God ordained Government, gives we the people the right to bare arms. Every state in the Union has laws that allow the use of deadly force to protect life and property.
The issue the biblical and historically ignorant such as your self have not answered, is the fact that if we have the right to protect a born child with deadly force if nessisary, then the same should be true for the womb child. You are just simply wrong. I find it really hard to swallow that catholics come off as big passifist, when a pope killed a boy for naming his dog after him. If you want to be a passifist parasite, and live in the freedom blood has bought you, and turn around and condemn those who did the shedding, you have the right to do so. But I also have the right to tell you you are stupid, and whether knowingly, or unknowingly, you are the enemy of the pre-born womb child, and this country. You would rather protect the abortionist, rather than protect the womb child from a horrible death. What about priest for life putting a bounty out on those who would protect the womb child, and would have them turned over to a renigade pro-abort government? But if your true motive is to put gold in your pocket, you could really care less if the life of a womb child were protected.

reply from: RobertFerguson

so all of your prolife tactics have saved every baby?
Possibly you have not done anything prolife in real life? How would non-action be equated to not gaining dead babies?
gee, even though you repeated it. You STILL missed the clear point?!

reply from: RobertFerguson

I did!
isn't it true that you helped your murderous daughter kill a grandchild or two or three of yours?

reply from: RobertFerguson

So the OT with it's examples and precepts is not meant to be for our doctrine, correction reproof an instruction in righteousness?
gee that will surprise God who inspired Timothy to write in the NT that such IS to be used in such a way.
Speaking of what Christ said. He said He did not come to abolish the law.




Defense is not "vengeance" it has nothing to do with retribution of PAST crimes.
Defense is defense!
The abortionist is not innocent.
God was wrong to tell people to kill?
God's men were wrong to obey Him?

reply from: faithman

So the OT with it's examples and precepts is not meant to be for our doctrine, correction reproof an instruction in righteousness?
gee that will surprise God who inspired Timothy to write in the NT that such IS to be used in such a way.
Speaking of what Christ said. He said He did not come to abolish the law.




Defense is not "vengeance" it has nothing to do with retribution of PAST crimes.
Defense is defense!
The abortionist is not innocent.
God was wrong to tell people to kill?
God's men were wrong to obey Him?
1Ti 1:7 Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.
1Ti 1:8 But we know that the law [is] good, if a man use it lawfully;
1Ti 1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
1Ti 1:10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
1Ti 1:11 According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.
The old testiment was not done away with. If one does not come to Christ, the full wieght of the law condemns them. The scripture does not teach christians to be total passivist. Romans 13 says that governmanet is ordaind of God to be a terror to evil doers, by the instument of exicution, the sword. The Constitution says the government is of the people, and the 2nd amendment places the "sword" in the hands of citizens.

reply from: GodsLaw2Live

To Robert Ferguson, Faithman, Christian Soldier, and like-minded individuals. You may want to remember that many of the Jihadists believe they are the righteous and have the right to kill you as worthless dogs at this time. I would not like to imitate them. They believe they are qualified to be judge, jury and executioner at this time; they do the 5 prayers a day, they fast, they give alms, they do the big trip, they do "Allah's Will". They believe they are suppose to act now. Jesus said man's government is in charge now. We are to let the weeds grow up with the good crop. In fact, we could accidently root up the good crop if we try to determine what is a weed. That is what Jihadists do. They don't see that they are murderers and worse than those they kill. Jesus will judge when he returns. We are not permitted to go weeding at this time. If something is to be done, it must be done decently and orderly, in a lawful assembly. Law and order, after love and mercy, are among the most important of attributes. God gave authority to men's government. We must follow the rules and laws as laid down by the higher authority - man's government.

reply from: faithman

Yes God ordained Government to be a terror to evil doers, not sanction the killing of womb children. The God ordained Government of the US places the sword of Romans 13 in the hands of it's citizens by the 2nd amendment. All 50 God ordained state governments have self defence laws. There is no law and order without the power to back it up. You would leave us all defencless against any thug who wishes to do harm. You keep making it about issue we are not. No one is advocating the killing of unarmed folk for religious reasons. We are saying that if the pre-born are persons, they deserve the same protection from evil doers that a born child does. You , and stupid issue changing punks like you, refuse to answere those questions. You just throw up some convaluted, half bake hypothetical, that assures the continued murder of the womb child.

reply from: InIt4life

As for the issue of defending ones own self:
>But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.- Matt. 5:39
>And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.- Matt. 5:41
>Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neigbor, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; THAT YE MAY BE the children of your Father which is in heaven. - Matt. 5:43-45
>And ye shall be hated of ALL men for my name's sake...But when they persecute you in this city, flee into another. - Matt. 10:22,23
>Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and HARMLESS as doves. - Matt. 10:16
>And ye shall hear of wars and rumors of wars: see that ye be not troubled. - Matt. 24:6
>Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. - Matt. 26:52
>As ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise. - Luke 6:31
>My kingdom is not of this world: IF my kingdom were of this world, THEN would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews. - John 18:36
>Bless them which persecute you: bless, and curse not. - Rom. 12:14
>RECOMPENSE TO NO MAN EVIL FOR EVIL. - Rom. 12:14
>Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in doing so thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. Be not overcome of evil, but OVERCOME EVIL WITH GOOD. - Rom. 12:19-20
>Being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it: being defamed, we entreat. - 1 Cor. 4:12,13
>For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds. - 2 Cor. 10:4
>See that none render evil for evil unto any man. - 1 Thess.5:15
>For we wrestle not against flesh and blood. - Eph.6:12
>Who [Christ], when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not. - 1 Peter 2:23
>Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing.
- 1 Peter 2:23
>He that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. - Rev. 13:10
>Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you... - John 14:27
>Everyone that is of the truth heareth my voice. - John 18:37
Any questions?

reply from: faithman

Anyone can chop the bible up an make it say what they want it to. Everyone keeps talking about being subject to government, then ignoreing what that government says. WE THE PEOPLE are the government. WE THE PEOPLE have been given the sword of Romans 13 by the second amendment to be a terror to evil doers.Our government was not created by ungodly men, but has been high jacked by such. Slavery was not abolished until after a war was fought.

reply from: JohnGlenn

Yes, you said you are not a pacifist, but rather a "non- resistant"
According to the American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition a non resistant is one who is "submissively obedient" Does your non-reistance REALLY apply across the board? Would you be submissively obedient to rapists and killers and others who tempt you into defending ones own self or their household?

reply from: JohnGlenn

No one is imitaing them in defending self or others. When will you begin to address defense? And stop with your lies about retribution?

reply from: JohnGlenn

So all those great men of faith in the Bible who used violence were heretics?

Now we are getting somewhere. Where do you find one single post from an adovcate of treating the unborn with an equal defense to the born say a word about "vengance"?

So again, all those great men of faith who killed in defense of self or others were wrong and heretics rather than men of God?
Why then are unrepentant killers listed in Hebrews 11 hall of faith?

reply from: faithman

Rom 13:1 ¶ Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
Rom 13:2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
Rom 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
Rom 13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to [execute] wrath upon him that doeth evil.
===================================================
===================================================
===================================================
WE THE PEOPLE are the government in America. WE THE PEOPLE have been given the sword of Romans 13 by the 2nd amendment.
==================================================
==================================================
==================================================
1Ti 1:8 But we know that the law [is] good, if a man use it lawfully;
1Ti 1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
1Ti 1:10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
===================================================
===================================================
This scripture gives the proper aplication of the law. Many of these offences carry the death penalty. So if the new testiment Christian were to use it lawfully, it would include the death penalty for some of the offences describe here.

reply from: InIt4life

I do not deny that God commanded in the Old Testament that nation war against nation, and that He commanded the Jews to engage in physical battles that resulted in death.
I do wish to point out, however, that this was not His intention before the fall of man. All throughout his life, Jesus re-introduced the call to peace, and did not incite his followers to defend him as the soldiers led him away. He himself did not kill even to defend those whom the Romans were mistreating. Abortion and infanticide existed then and Jesus never killed an abortionist.
If you are not a Christian (or if you have believed a lie), then you may not understand the call of Christ to lay down your physical weapons and stop fighting the physical battles. We are called to take up a spiritual armor and fight a very real spiritual battle. We still fight for our KING, but not by taking the lives of those He wishes to save.
Die to yourself, to your unholy passions, to your bloodthirstiness.
If Christians wish to defend by bloodshed, Christianity is polluted and profaned.
Even when persecuted, Christians ought to rather suffer injury or death than to take the life of another. If a Christian kills an unbeliever, he sends him to hell. Christ said we are to LOVE our enemies. This does not mean we kill them nor does it mean we tolerate their sin by ignoring it.
"In what respect, then, does the wise and good man differ from the evil and foolish one? Is it not that he has unconquerable patience, of which the foolish are destitute? Is it not that he knows how to govern himself and to mitigate his anger- which those are unable to curb because they are without virtue?...What if a man gives way to grief and anger and indulges these emotions (which he should struggle against)? Such a man does not not fulfill the duty of virtue. For he who tries to return an injury desires to imitate that very person by whom he has been injured. In short, he who imitates a bad man, cannot be good." Lactantius c.304-313

reply from: GodsLaw2Live

I'm glad to see you've joined the fray InIt4Life. I see I also have The AmericanCatholic and concernedparent as allies in the argument against pro-lifers taking matters into their own hands. I know that in many areas concerned parent has been bitterly opposed to my positions. But approving of peaceful means, rather than violence, seems to be one area where we are in agreement on.
I've discovered on this forum that we are all very different; with some areas of overlapping agreement, and big areas where we do not agree.
Again, arguing against abortion within the framework of the law is where we should be.

reply from: RobertFerguson

THE CLAIM:
THE TRUTH IN JESUS' OWN WORDS.
"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." (Matthew 10:34-39 NASB)

reply from: RobertFerguson

Just stupid I guess?

reply from: faithman

Just stupid I guess?
How qick the passifist phonies run to the pro-abortion side to justify their position.

reply from: InIt4life

Sir,
Are you claiming that Jesus was refering to a militant sword in this passage?
Are you claiming that Jesus meant for us to take this sword and use it against our own family members?
If this is your position, why are you pro-life?

reply from: yoda

Yes.... does that mean that abortionists must die by a suction machine or a canula?

reply from: faithman

Have about 10,000 I AM A PERSON cards in stock, waiting to be handed out. How bout it passifist? Or does handing out pictures of womb childen constitute violence?

reply from: InIt4life

I would be glad to pass out more literature that educates people about the horrors of abortion. It would be a nice addition to our banner that reads, ABORTION IS AMERICA'S KOSHER GENOCIDE, and baby head poster.
non-resistance is not = to non-action

reply from: InIt4life

This means that violent people die violent deaths.
It is a warning to violent people. Those who lead into captivity will be lead into captivity, those who kill will be killed, IF you choose to live this way, this is the end of your path...(There is a way that seems right unto man, but the end thereof is death)
Here is the patience and faith of the saints...we can trust God to punish the evil for us. HE is our defense, He may make use of carnal men with carnal weapons to punish wicked people, but we (Christians) are not to take those weapons into our own hands and seek vengance, nor defence.
I can rest in my spirit, when wickedness seems to be unpunished, because I know that there is a place reserved for Satan, his angels and all who are rebellious to God, where the flames are unquenchable and the worms (which are intelligent, being formed from their own sins) do not die. If they do not repent in this life, rest assured, this is what awaits them.
We all deserve this, as we were all born in sin, and have all fallen short of the glory of God. You and I, sir, are no better than them. If you have chosen to be a follower of Christ, and are adopted into the family of God, then lay down your thirst for blood, trust the ways of Christ, and be renewed in your spirit.
May God the Father of Truth and Light be with you.

reply from: BiblicalTruth

Alleluia Sister
BiblicalTruth

reply from: RobertFerguson

God comannded His followers to use weapons to kill masny times.
Defense is not vengance.

reply from: BiblicalTruth

God comannded His followers to use weapons to kill masny times.
Defense is not vengance.
It is quite telling that you say "God" commanded. Sure in the old testament. The only place in the new Testament when Jesus brough a new and better way he commanded his followers once to get a sword. Then there were 12 of them and they said that had one and he said that is enough. Following you can see why one was enough as he planned to condemn the use of the sword and tell them that if they used the sword they would die by the sword.
BiblicalTruth

reply from: RobertFerguson

Jesus said "I and my Father are One." Jesus does not have a separate character opposite to that of His Father. Scripture says He is the SAME yesterday, today and forever. The same God who commanded men to use weapons to kill.
is the OT of no use to us? Th etruth of the matter again is that the NT says that we are to use the OT for our DOCTRINE, correction, reproof and instruction in RIGHTEOUSNESS, etc ... yes?

Really? Only one sword? You best re-read your NT. The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords."
He is not saying that two swords would be enough to defend twelve men. If that were His intent, He would have said, "They are enough." Instead, He is showing that the discussion was over. It was a mild rebuke showing that the matter was closed, as in "Enough of this!"
Ask the generations of martyrs whether the Christian faith is safe and you will discover a harsh reality. The kingdom of God and the kingdom of the world are at war, and war is tough. Jesus doesn't promise that we will be always be protected. He warned the disciples that danger was in their future.

reply from: JusticeThenMercy

God comannded His followers to use weapons to kill masny times.
Defense is not vengance.
It is quite telling that you say "God" commanded. Sure in the old testament. The only place in the new Testament when Jesus brough a new and better way he commanded his followers once to get a sword. Then there were 12 of them and they said that had one and he said that is enough. Following you can see why one was enough as he planned to condemn the use of the sword and tell them that if they used the sword they would die by the sword.
BiblicalTruth
I am stunned that you guys need a Bible Study to know that the strong and able are to defend the weak and innocent from peril. Yes, vengeance is the Lords - isn't it a sweet thought? aaahhhhhhhhh
It sure seems to me that anyone who cannot see the rightness in defending the babies with whatever means necessary has a perverse affection. It's such a simple and right concept that it even seems silly to have to argue it. Even Jesus expressed such sentiments when in Matt 18 he spoke about the "millstone........"

reply from: BiblicalTruth

They do not resist with violence and get killed as per Jesus's command. I love it when people argue my point for me.
And you are right God does not change. He will reward everyone for what they have done good or bad. He does change what he wants us to do though as we grow closer to him.
BiblicalTruth

reply from: BiblicalTruth

God comannded His followers to use weapons to kill masny times.
Defense is not vengance.
It is quite telling that you say "God" commanded. Sure in the old testament. The only place in the new Testament when Jesus brough a new and better way he commanded his followers once to get a sword. Then there were 12 of them and they said that had one and he said that is enough. Following you can see why one was enough as he planned to condemn the use of the sword and tell them that if they used the sword they would die by the sword.
BiblicalTruth
I am stunned that you guys need a Bible Study to know that the strong and able are to defend the weak and innocent from peril. Yes, vengeance is the Lords - isn't it a sweet thought? aaahhhhhhhhh
It sure seems to me that anyone who cannot see the rightness in defending the babies with whatever means necessary has a perverse affection. It's such a simple and right concept that it even seems silly to have to argue it. Even Jesus expressed such sentiments when in Matt 18 he spoke about the "millstone........"
So how many Abortion doctors have you killed or at least stopped with violence to save a life. If you have not then you are a hypocrit.
BiblicalTruth

reply from: RobertFerguson

They do not resist with violence and get killed as per Jesus's command. I love it when people argue my point for me.
Are you THAT stupid? Many martyrs of faith resisted violently. Rev Detrick Bonehoeffer one of the great heroes of our faith was martyered for resisting the Nazis by plotting to kill Hitler. Rev Martin Neomoiler also stood with force as did many of the German resistence church. Samson killed 3000 enemies of God in defending the freedom of Israel by laying down his own life. Samson died in victory. Paul Hill willingly died to defend the preborn child. Dying in victory as well.
"The blood of martyrs nourishes the Church much more than the moisture of dew brings gardens into bloom" - St. John Chrysostomos

reply from: RobertFerguson

We have been through this faulity analogy.
http://www.prolifeamerica.com/fusetalk/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=7&threadid=2293&enterthread=y

Does one have to be prepared to adopt in order to accept adoption as a justifiable defensive tactic to save a preborn life?
Obviously NOT!
Does one have to DO sidewalk counseling or use graphic signs, or go to schools and speak in seminars or all of the many other things that prolifers do in an attempt to save a preborn life for those tactics to be justifiable?
Obviously NOT!
Then why does one have be prepared to or actually act out with force for force to be accepted as a justifiable defensive tactic in an attempt to save a preborn life?

reply from: InIt4life

I cannot recall my source on this thought, but as I understood it, in prison, D. Bonehoeffer repented of his involvement in the plot to assasinate Hitler.
He wrote, "...It is not God's will that any man, on the sheer strentgth of his own superabundant power, should take over for God on earth, like the strong take care of the helpless. On the contrary, God manages his own cause...God Himself intends to be Lord on earth, and he regards all man's exuberant zeal on His behalf as a real disservice... Become weak in the world and let God be the Lord!"
Thy Kingdom Come 1932
"It is true that the OT never explicitly bids us to hate our enemies. On the contrary, it tells us more than once that we must love them (Exod.xxiii 4; Prov. xxv 21; Gen. xlv; I Sam. xxiv 7; 2 Kings vi 22 etc.) But Jesus is not talking of ordinary enmity, but that which exists between the People of God and the world. The wars of Israel were the only 'holy wars' in history, for they were the wars of God against the world of idols. It is not this enmity which Jesus condemns... No the real meaning of this saying is that Jesus is again releasing His disciples from the political associations of the Old Israel. From now on there can be no more wars of faith. The only way to overcome our enemy is by loving him.
To the natural man, the very notion of loving his enemies is an intolerable offence, and quite beyond his capacity: it cuts right across his ideas of good and evil. More important still, to man under the law, the idea of loving his enemies is clean contrary to the law of God, which requires men to sever all connection with their enemies and to pass judgement on them. Jesus however takes the law of God in his own hands and expounds its true meaning. THe will of God, to which the law gives expression, is that men should defeat their enemies by loving them.
In the NT our enemies are those who cherish hostility against us, not those against whom we cherish hostility, for Jesus refuses to reckon with such a possibility..." ch. 12 The Enemy- the "Extra-ordinary" The Cost of Discipleship
PS I could have gone further, but if you have a copy of The Cost of Discipleship, then you can just read it there.

reply from: yoda

That is a strawman, and totally outside the parameters of this debate. No one is justifying force based on hatred. The use of force in defense of the lives of unborn babies is what is being debated, not killing out of hatred or revenge.

reply from: RobertFerguson

I have read Cost of Dicscplieship many times and in fact am reading it again at present.
Using force in defense is not taking over for God.
Nothing in the Cost of Discipleship implies that Bonhoeffer repented of defending Jews.
You will need ot document yoor claim or retract.

reply from: InIt4life

like i said, i cant remember where i read or heard it, I could be wrong about a total repentance for his part, so i will have to retract until i find it.
Grace and peace be unto you in the Name of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ

reply from: InIt4life

That is a strawman, and totally outside the parameters of this debate. No one is justifying force based on hatred. The use of force in defense of the lives of unborn babies is what is being debated, not killing out of hatred or revenge.
Not so, the men who are killing babies are the enemies of the babies. They are enemies to God. An enemy is one who makes himself an enemy, which is clearly what you would be defending the babies from. The rest of what Bonehoeffer wrote addresses the exact issue you are trying to set your debate upon. You only pointed out one part you don't like, what about the rest of it?
Remember these are not my words but the words of a martyr.

reply from: BiblicalTruth

Here is a little lead:
During this period of his life, it is important to note that Bonhoeffer eschewed violence. He could be considered a 'pacifist.' Of course his later turn about to participation in the murder plot on Hitler does signal a very real change in him. Walter Wink raises this question: "If counter-violence appears to be the only responsible choice, this still does not make violence right. Bonhoeffer is a much-misunderstood case in point. He joined the plot to assassinate Hitler. But he insisted his act was a sin, and threw himself on the mercy of God. Two generations of Christians have held back from full commitment to non-violence, citing Bonhoeffer's example. Had he known, both that his attempt would fail, and that it would have the effect of justifying redemptive violence in the eyes of so many Christians, I wonder if he would have done it." (Wink, Engaging the Powers).
It was not easy for Bonhoeffer to go back on his commitment to non-violence seen in his book on Discipleship. His later writings indicate that he had spent some considerable time reflecting on the implications of this change. Bonhoeffer's life and his book on Discipleship are important resources when considering the possibilities of the redemption of mimesis and we recommend them without hesitation.

reply from: defenderoftruth

uh the ungodly spirit of the "christians" on here is just nauseating. Kill, Kill, Kill, Justice, Justice!
God will kill them eventually, if they are unrepentant they will suffer an eternity in hell. God is the giver of justice. The best our government should do is arrest them for murder, put them in prison away from their wealth and family and have them think about their crimes until God calls them to judgment. I read someone talk about the death penalty (how can christians be against killing abortion doctors but be for the death penalty), for the record as much as it would kill me inside to have my little girl or husband murdered I would not want the person responsible to be put to death. I would want them to rot in prison (a just reward on earth from the state/local/government) for life and have time to repent before their big moment infront of God Almighty. I would not wish anyone to go to hell. I struggled with non-resistance and still do I'm to the point now if I were attacked or my family I would use all but lethal means to get away from them-defense only, if running away is available without violence I'm all for that. Killing is not the answer.
In Christ,
DoT

reply from: yoda

Clearly you missed the point. Defending babies from "the enemy" is not an act of hatred.

reply from: yoda

Should you ever be put in that position, you may find that it is not always possible to pick your response according to your latest philosophical conclusions.
If your attacker is armed and threatening, and you are armed, you may not have the ability to choose between lethal and non-lethal defense, but rather between lethal force or no resistance at all. If you choose no resistance at all, then you and your loved ones are at the "mercy" of your attacker. If you choose to use lethal force, you may not be able to control it's effects.
Choosing to run away is fine, if you (and your loved ones) are faster than your attacker and/or his weapons. If not, then you may be caught and attacked again.
A determined attacker will not be easily put off by threats and bluster. And he probably will not be impressed by fine philosophical points, either.
And you may have only seconds to decide, or die.

reply from: InIt4life

Clearly you missed the point. Defending babies from "the enemy" is not an act of hatred.

Your point of disagreement with me "To the natural man, the very notion of loving his enemies is an intolerable offence, and quite beyond his capacity: it cuts right across his ideas of good and evil." I was quoting Dietrich Bonhoeffer, from his book "The Cost of Discipleship ch 12"
They were not my words, they were his. I happen to agree with them.
I do not recall saying that defence was an act of hatred, but (imo) there has to be room in the heart for hatred for there to be a willingness to take the life of another person.

reply from: RobertFerguson

Clearly you missed the point. Defending babies from "the enemy" is not an act of hatred.

Your point of disagreement with me "To the natural man, the very notion of loving his enemies is an intolerable offence, and quite beyond his capacity: it cuts right across his ideas of good and evil." I was quoting Dietrich Bonhoeffer, from his book "The Cost of Discipleship ch 12"
They were not my words, they were his. I happen to agree with them.
I do not recall saying that defence was an act of hatred, but (imo) there has to be room in the heart for hatred for there to be a willingness to take the life of another person.
Yoda,
It's sad to see that so many aledged advocates for the baby spend their days focused on the "enemy" of the baby aka the baby killer/abortionist rather than the babies they claim to defend- so much so that they are unable to see (for the natural man) the opposite of loving is hatred as spoken of in Bonhoffer's CoD quote.
Their words, thir focus, well it just seems more like their are advocates for the baby killer than for the babies.
The fact of the matter is that Paul Hill was not a 'natural man' but a man of faith who understood that he was loving the "enemy" all beit 'tough love' enough apply his focused advocacy fo rth epreborn victim and to stop 'his enemy' dead in his sin of killing. As you said, such a loving defense is not hatred.

reply from: faithman

Ya know... They screem that violence must not be tolerated, but they do!!! BY THEIR POSITION, THEY TOLERATE ABORTIONIST VIOLENCE AGAINST THE WOMB CHILD!! Get all indegnant against folk who agree. Violence should not be tolerated. They just hire their dirty work done by paying bounty to the pro-abort government. So according to these pro-abort passifist, we tolerate deadly violence against the child in the womb because it is "legal". But we scream indignation against those who for sure and certain stop it. Burned clinics can not house death chambers. dead abortionist can not kill babies.

reply from: JohnGlenn

Reading books is a great idea. I really
enjoyed SGT. York's biography, and Letters from
Prison.
I've spent some time in Bonhoeffer. I've never heard
it hinted that he repented of the assassination
attempt specifically, or of his participation in
forceful opposition to the Third Reich generally. The
burden of proof VERY CLEARLY lies with the person
asserting Bonhoeffer recanted or repented.
Quoting COST OF DISCIPLESHIP and other writings of
Bonhoeffer from the 30's is to quote the pacifist
Bonhoeffer prior to the maturity that came with the
terrible decisions the war forced everyone to make.
In his Letters from Prison, he articulated his
struggle, very painfully, to reconcile his pacifism
with his participation in forceful defensive actions.
As far as I can ascertain, he never fully wound his
way (intellectually) out of the trap of pacifism, but
Bonhoeffer's saving grace was that he confessed (in
the Letters) that even when he found himself doing
things that seemed to defile his personal conscience
(moulded by his pacifist errors), he must subject that
sense of defilement to the higher priority of
defending the innocent, trusting Christ to cleanse his
conscience from the defilements of war.
In this way, Bonhoeffer's testimony rings like Sgt.
York's in WWI, as that of a man profoundly confused by
pacifist heresy; a man who nonetheless was able by the
power of the Spirit who transcends confused
consciences to rise above intellectual pacifism and
exercise the true power of a Christian to do what has
to be done.
Most importantly, Bonhoeffer understood that when
governments begin to usurp the rights God reserves to
Himself, it is the duty of people who call themselves
Christians to band together to fight those goverments
in word and deed, or the gospel message is destroyed.
Bonhoeffer made it very clear that those who were not
willing to organize to defend the witness of the
Church and remove themselves out from under the rebel
power structure (in his case, REICH III) were lapsed,
apostate, phony Christians. Bonhoeffer was explicit
in applying this judgment to all the "Christian"
Lutheran churches of Germany who either refused to
join his confessing Church, or dropped out when the
cost was too much. Even though they continued to
confess the catholic creeds and preach their "gospel,"
they were outside of the Body of Christ because they
shrunk back from the duty to defend against Hitler's
regime, God's right to be seen to be God.

reply from: JohnGlenn

Good for you. RETRACTION of a lie is good.
Speraking of Bonhoeffer's writtings..
It sure does not cost as much to not have faith without costly works.
Isn't it CHEAP GRACE to stop short of treating the preborn with the same defense that Deitrich was willing to offer to the Jews and other born peoples?
Bonhoeffer firmly believed that it was not enough for people to seek justice, truth, honesty and goodness for their own sake and patiently to suffer for them; rather, people must do so in loyal obedience to Him who is the source and spring of all goodness, justice and truth and on whom they should felt absolutely dependent. "Bonhoeffer was firmly and rightly convinced that it is not only a Christian right but a Christian duty towards God to oppose tyranny, that is, a government which is no longer based on natural law and the law of God" (Leibholz in Bonhoeffer, 1959, p. 30).

reply from: JohnGlenn

Here is a little lead:
During this period of his life, it is important to note that Bonhoeffer eschewed violence. He could be considered a 'pacifist.' Of course his later turn about to participation in the murder plot on Hitler does signal a very real change in him. Walter Wink raises this question: "If counter-violence appears to be the only responsible choice, this still does not make violence right. Bonhoeffer is a much-misunderstood case in point. He joined the plot to assassinate Hitler. But he insisted his act was a sin, and threw himself on the mercy of God. Two generations of Christians have held back from full commitment to non-violence, citing Bonhoeffer's example. Had he known, both that his attempt would fail, and that it would have the effect of justifying redemptive violence in the eyes of so many Christians, I wonder if he would have done it." (Wink, Engaging the Powers).
It was not easy for Bonhoeffer to go back on his commitment to non-violence seen in his book on Discipleship. His later writings indicate that he had spent some considerable time reflecting on the implications of this change. Bonhoeffer's life and his book on Discipleship are important resources when considering the possibilities of the redemption of mimesis and we recommend them without hesitation.
Sounds like a pacifists writings attempting to place the hertic pacifist spin on Bonhoeffer's actions and heart. "Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross" Paul Hill layed down his life for the joy of the (cross) electric chair in an attempt to save the lives of 32 others. When was the last time that you layed down your life for a friend or even honored a modern day Christian American matryer like Paul Hill for doing so?

reply from: faithman

Jam 2:15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
Jam 2:16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be [ye] warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what [doth it] profit?
I guess this does not aply to the womb child.

reply from: JohnGlenn

You have not shown this to be the case.

Bonhoeffer went to his death, which he called the "solemnest feast on the road to eternal freedom." He was convinced that this, the ultimate cost of discipleship, was aprice well worth paying. This is an approach to discipleship that bears the stamp of authenticity.
Bonhoeffer truely understood what Jesus said in Luke 9:62 "Anyone who puts ahand to the plow and then looks back is not fit for the Kingdom of God"

reply from: faithman

Ya know... They screem that violence must not be tolerated, but they do!!! BY THEIR POSITION, THEY TOLERATE ABORTIONIST VIOLENCE AGAINST THE WOMB CHILD!! Get all indegnant against folk who agree. Violence should not be tolerated. They just hire their dirty work done by paying bounty to the pro-abort government. So according to these pro-abort passifist, we tolerate deadly violence against the child in the womb because it is "legal". But we scream indignation against those who for sure and certain stop it. Burned clinics can not house death chambers. dead abortionist can not kill babies.

reply from: BiblicalTruth

More humanistic thought. Nero was horrible and this is who was ruling when Roman's 13 was written. I don't think God ever reserved the right to use Christians as living torches but you get the idea. Tertullian wrote "The blood of the martyrs is seed" meaning that when people witness someone who is not afraid to die and does not need to protect what he has here on earth because he knows he has something much better they are in awe and very ready to follow after them and find out what this confidence in Christ is all about. The see it is real instead of some fake who kicks and scratches for his last breath trampling over everyone he needs to to save his own hide.
Mat 16:25 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.
Rom 8:36 As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.
BiblicalTruth

reply from: BiblicalTruth

People who get killed for killing other people are called murderers. People who get killed for confessing Christ to people who will kill you if you do are called martyrs.
BiblicalTruth

reply from: faithman

People who get killed for killing other people are called murderers. People who get killed for confessing Christ to people who will kill you if you do are called martyrs.
BiblicalTruth
AH yes, another false hood. People who kill others for killing are called policeman, soldier, Father, husband, hero. So God is a murderer? God is a co-conspirator to command humans to comit murder? Have you rtead dueteronimy? Who about genesis 9-6? The definition of murder in the bible is shedding of inocent blood. The definition of people who kill murders is the avenger of inocent blood, an office commissioned by the Lord. Why don't you start posting biblical truth, or change your net name? I havent seen you post any yet.

reply from: yoda

mar·tyr
noun (plural mar·tyrs)
Definition:

1. somebody put to death: somebody who chooses to die rather than deny a strongly held belief, especially a religious belief
2. somebody who makes sacrifices: somebody who makes sacrifices or suffers greatly in order to advance a cause or principle
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861628566

reply from: JohnGlenn

yet you fail to prove this
It sems that He did, since according to the Bible- government is placed by God.
Kinda like Paul Hill. Great job of proving my point.
What are you talking about? Paul Hill did not do this. Are you trying to falsely imply things about defenders of preborn babies that did not happen and is completely false? I would hope that you are not a bearer of false testimony.
]
yes, Paul Hill shared much about this verse from his death row chamber. Great job of documenting this for us.
yes, Paul Hill said it a little differently but withthe same flavor- he said "mix my blood with the blood of the unborn"

reply from: BiblicalTruth

yet you fail to prove this
It sems that He did, since according to the Bible- government is placed by God.
Kinda like Paul Hill. Great job of proving my point.
What are you talking about? Paul Hill did not do this. Are you trying to falsely imply things about defenders of preborn babies that did not happen and is completely false? I would hope that you are not a bearer of false testimony.
]
yes, Paul Hill shared much about this verse from his death row chamber. Great job of documenting this for us.
yes, Paul Hill said it a little differently but withthe same flavor- he said "mix my blood with the blood of the unborn"
I don't suppose Paul Hill quoted
Mat 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
Mat 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
OR
Rom 12:19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
Here is a GREAT one
Apostles Bible.
Ps 146:3 Trust not in princes, nor in the children of men, in whom there is no safety.
Your and Hill's interpritations of the above verses are not Christian! You cause contradictions in the Bible and it is not the historical position ... the Jude 3 position.
Jud 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
BiblicalTruth

reply from: faithman

check out the site in this post. copy and paste to hearts content.

reply from: JohnGlenn

Those verse are about vengeance- which has nothing to do with Paul Hill's defensive action.
Paul Hill understood that there was no safety found in princes. This governemtn did nothing to protectthe most vulnerable of society, these unborn children, yet the princes do all they can to protect the baby killers.
strange how you are not able to prove this to be so. And do not even attempt such.
Sounds like Paul Hill has contended for faith much more than you. Hill had enough faith to lay down his own life as a martyer of his faith.

reply from: JohnGlenn

Some. Some are rightly called this others are not. Paul Hill has been wrongly accused this way many times.
That sounds like what Hill did when He confessed the Christian faith that the unborn are equal inthe site of God, worthy of equal defense. Those who disagreed , like you, killed him.
Is THIS the best that you can do?

reply from: JohnGlenn

That's true.

apparently in the minds of those who claim all killing is wrong and murder.
I do not think he likes those scriptures. Nor 2 Timothy 3:16&17 Or Numbers 35:33-34 where it states that these baby killers must be killed in order for our land to be cleansed.
True enough
True, yet Hill did not claim any avenging of blood, as his motivation or intent, only defense of 32. Good thing God looks on the heart while wicked men like Biblical Truth look on appearances, which can be sooo deceiving... .
Right. That has also been my hope. Not the name change but repentance and posting biblical truth.

reply from: JohnGlenn

mar·tyr
noun (plural mar·tyrs)
Definition:

1. somebody put to death: somebody who chooses to die rather than deny a strongly held belief, especially a religious belief
2. somebody who makes sacrifices: somebody who makes sacrifices or suffers greatly in order to advance a cause or principle
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861628566
That sounds like the matyer Paul Hill! Hill sacrifced. Hill died for his strong religious faith. Hill death advanced the principle of an equal defense. That sounds like the matyer Paul Hill!

reply from: JohnGlenn

Paul did save all 32 children that day from death at the hands of Britton.

reply from: BiblicalTruth

How fascinating you got rid of the text!
You are delusional! Psa 5:5 The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity.
Mat 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
defense
Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -fensed, -fens?ing.
- noun 1. resistance against attack; protection: Two more regiments are needed for the defense of the city.
2. something that defends, as a fortification, physical or mental quality, or medication: This fort was once the main defense of the island.
3. the defending of a cause or the like by speech, argument, etc.: He spoke in defense of the nation's foreign policy.
4. a speech, argument, etc., in vindication: She delivered a defense of free enterprise.
5. Law. a. the denial or pleading of the defendant in answer to the claim or charge that has been made.
b. the proceedings adopted by a defendant, or the defendant's legal agents, for defending against the charges that have been made.
c. a defendant and his or her counsel.
6. Psychology. defense mechanism (def. 2).
Originally posted by: JohnGlenn
Paul Hill understood that there was no safety found in princes. This governemtn did nothing to protectthe most vulnerable of society, these unborn children, yet the princes do all they can to protect the baby killers.
Psa 4:8 I will both lay me down in peace, and sleep: for thou, LORD, only makest me dwell in safety.
Psa 12:5 For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the LORD; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him.
Pro 21:31 The horse is prepared against the day of battle: but safety is of the LORD.
1Sa 2:9 He will keep the feet of his saints, and the wicked shall be silent in darkness; for by strength shall no man prevail.
Faith in our Lord is our safety not the weapons of man.
Jer 17:5 Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD.
Isa 59:18 According to their deeds, accordingly he will repay, fury to his adversaries, recompence to his enemies; to the islands he will repay recompence.
Rom 12:19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
Originally posted by: JohnGlenn
strange how you are not able to prove this to be so. And do not even attempt such.
http://ccel.org/fathers.html You can read it for yourself if you care. It will take about 2 year I would imagine. This is what the faith was up until 325 when the political state hijacked Christianity. If you will not read it and you are so ignorant as to not understand Matthew 5:39 then I will produce quote after quote after quote but I will have to wait until I get home from work.
Paul Hill committed suicide by bringing the sword of the state upon himself with his Violent actions. Violence is not equal to Christian witness.
BiblicalTruth

reply from: JohnGlenn

BT,
you find it interesting to conserve space when answer yet maintaining the accuracy and integrety of the question, I find that strange. Ps 5:5 was not in the list now was it? Sounds like you are the delutional one. Why do you continue to take scripture out of context? Mat 5:39 is speaking of vengeance, defense is not vengeance. great verse about not trusting in the government, butthey too have nothing to do with paul hill's defensive action. I have studied all those writings of man. I prefer inspired word of God. Your preference obviously differs. Based on your last few attempts to post things by taking scripture out of context, I supect that you will not be able to provide any substantial proof even with quote after quote. Often times in the Bible God used violence as His witness, why are you denying Him?

reply from: yoda

The sub-title of this thread is "VIOLENCE MUST NOT BE TOLERATED!"
Why do you say that violence against abortionists must not be tolerated (after three of them have been killed), and yet you say we MUST TOLERATE violence against the 47 million babies that have been killed since 1973 by abortion?
Why "tolerate" killing 47 million, but not 3?
Could you explain that math to me?

reply from: faithman

WOW!! If i ever need a transfussion, I hope it is from an abortionist. Their blood is 47 million times more valuable than the womb child according to "pro-lifers".

reply from: yoda

Apparently so. It must be far superior to the blood of the 47 million babies...........
btw, copy this into your sig instead of what you have, which is not working:
http: // s81.photobucket. com/albums /j214/yodavater /?action= view& current=Iama Person 2.jpg
After you put in into your sig, remove all the spaces.

reply from: faithman

just ain't a gonna work.

reply from: yoda

Yes it will. Here's the same address, with all the spaces removed:
http://s81.photobucket.com/albums/j214/yodavater/?action=view¤t=IamaPerson2.jpg
">http://s81.photobucket.com/alb...IamaPerson2.jpg
Try it.
Now, here's the same address with ONE space after the "http":
http ://s81.photobucket.com/albums/j214/yodavater/?action=view¤t=IamaPerson2.jpg
It won't work until you remove that space. copy it, paste it, and then remove that space. I was putting too many spaces in it before, and you didn't get them all out.

reply from: faithman

The dummy finally got it right. thanks.

reply from: yoda

Good.
Now, where is someone to explain to us WHY the violence against 3 abortion doctors MUST BE STOPPED, but the violence against 47 million unborn babies MUST BE ALLOWED?
Who can answer that question for us?

reply from: faithman

OH! you know they won't touch that one with a ten foot pole dipped in 47 million drops of womb child blood!!

reply from: BiblicalTruth

I really don't understand what you are saying? In what list? Psalm 5:5 has nothing to do with the non resistant position. It was a verse relating to the fact that you are delusional trying to say that Matthew 5:39 is about vengeance! The reason I found it interesting that you got rid of the text is that is the only way you can come up with your interpretation...by not reading the words.
I am not sure how you can miss something so plain. Compare the bolded underlined italicized text. One is the verbage from the bible the other is the definition for DEFENSE. IT IS TALKING ABOUT DEFENSE. There is no way you can argue this.
Mat 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye RESIST not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
defense
Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -fensed, -fens?ing.
- noun 1. RESISTANCE against attack; protection: Two more regiments are needed for the defense of the city.
2. something that defends, as a fortification, physical or mental quality, or medication: This fort was once the main defense of the island.
3. the defending of a cause or the like by speech, argument, etc.: He spoke in defense of the nation's foreign policy.
4. a speech, argument, etc., in vindication: She delivered a defense of free enterprise.
5. Law. a. the denial or pleading of the defendant in answer to the claim or charge that has been made.
b. the proceedings adopted by a defendant, or the defendant's legal agents, for defending against the charges that have been made.
c. a defendant and his or her counsel.
6. Psychology. defense mechanism (def. 2).
They talk about the faith once handed down to them (The SAINTS)
Clement of Rome was St Pauls disciple
Polycarp was John the Beloved disciple
Ignatius was Polycarps Disciple. so on and so forth
It is not the writing of men. They are sharing what the Apostles shared with them. It is not scripture it is God given understanding of Scripture that was believed by ALL Christians. The fact that you reject what they have to say implicity acknowledges that their view of scripture (They protected, organized and died for our bible) is different than yours thus you do not have an Apostolic view of scripture.
BiblicalTruth

reply from: BiblicalTruth

I can't even believe that you can allow your mind to think this way. Everything I do is to stop the destruction of human life. Especially that of the unborn. Nothing I do can ever be remotely compared to what they do. I will never shed a drop of blood. Let heaven forgive me for compairing Christian Killing Paul the Apostle to Joe Abortionist. Mr. Save the world Christian out of character of God has been given the oportunity to live right after Jesus was killed and in our time to demonstrate how his actions can effect history.
Jesus has called us to be above reproach and not engage in anything that ends a human life no matter how evil that life is. However when Mr Save the World sees Paul taking part in the martyrdom of Saintly Stephen he flips out and can't believe someone could harm someone so gentle and so ready to help his fellow man. Mr Save the World now tracks Paul the to be Apostle and kills him so that he can no longer do this to God's children. He then gets caught by the Roman authorities and killed and the Christians go into revolt. Massive amount of blood is spilt and the peaceful Gospel is never shared because Mr Save the World did not have a clue as to how God works and killed Paul Christian persecuting Apostle to be.
Now fast forward 2000 years and Mr Save the World is at it again. But now he is hardening the hearts of those who don't have a personal relationship with Jesus but can't understand how ending one life is any better than ending another especially since Mr Save the World used to be in a Gang before Jesus saved his soul. He was actually pulled out of the Gang because Grandma Christian loved her enemy and forgave him for killing her grandson.
Please open your hearts to the Gospel of Peace!
Rom 10:15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
Eph 6:15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;
1Co 15:9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
1Co 15:10 But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.
1Co 6:7 Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?
1Co 6:8 Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren.
1Co 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
1Co 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
1Co 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
BiblicalTruth

reply from: yoda

Chill, friend, you are not the object of that question...... it was directed at the person who started this thread, not you. That person subtitled this thread with a statement I find rather curious...... hypocritical even.
But, as long as we are on the subject, does your "never a drop of blood" include that of someone who is attacking your and your family with deadly force? Or say a roomful of kindergarten kids? Would you truly be passive in all situations?

reply from: faithman

Chill, friend, you are not the object of that question...... it was directed at the person who started this thread, not you. That person subtitled this thread with a statement I find rather curious...... hypocritical even.
But, as long as we are on the subject, does your "never a drop of blood" include that of someone who is attacking your and your family with deadly force? Or say a roomful of kindergarten kids? Would you truly be passive in all situations?
Ya know, these passifist get real pissy when things hit a little closer to home. Let the womb chils die, but when it comes to they own, that trigger finger moves pretty quick.

reply from: BiblicalTruth

Originally posted by: yodavater
Chill, friend, you are not the object of that question...... it was directed at the person who started this thread, not you. That person subtitled this thread with a statement I find rather curious...... hypocritical even.
But, as long as we are on the subject, does your "never a drop of blood" include that of someone who is attacking your and your family with deadly force? Or say a roomful of kindergarten kids? Would you truly be passive in all situations?
I would classify your senarior here as a vain imagination and ungodly but for the sake of giving you a clear idea of what Christ has called us to I will answer your question. I would use my body in a non violent way to protect people. The miracles of God that come through faith however are the only weapon that can protect and convert people.
Mat 6:34 Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof. (We should not imagine evil scenarios. This verse explains why we are not to vainly imagine senarios)
Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. (ie Do not believe he is their ONLY safety.)
Pro 6:18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
Mat 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Act 4:25 Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things?
If I did not believe in Jesus my position would be stupid and irresponsable. Jesus changes everything!
1Co 15:14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
1Co 15:15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.
1Co 15:16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
1Co 15:17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
1Co 15:18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.
1Co 15:19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.
1Co 15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
1Co 15:21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
1Co 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
1Co 15:24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
1Co 15:25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
1Co 15:26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
We fear not death. That is the way of the world. We trust in God's promises and rise above the standards of the World.
BiblicalTruth

reply from: yoda

Well, I don't know how my hypothetical scenario can be considered "vain", but it does require a bit of imagination, that's true.
Okay, your answer is that you would do something like place yourself in front of whomever is being attacked, so as to take the brunt of whatever is being thrown at them, right? Okay......
In some rare instances, that might actually be effective in allowing your to sacrifice your life for theirs, which is of course a noble thing to do. But those instances are probably quite rare, even hypothetically.
More likely is something like a perpetrator who will, once you are dispatched, have "his way" with your whole family. In such a case, your sacrifice would be for naught, save a noble gesture. But the rest of your family would still be abused and/or dead.
But at least your answer is consistent with your principles, and for that I give you credit.
Do you recall when Michael Ducaucus (spelling?) ran for president and was asked that question by Bernard Kalb about what he would do if his wife was being raped right in front of him by an escaped convict? Do you recall how embarrassed he was?

reply from: BiblicalTruth

Originally posted by: yodavater
Well, I don't know how my hypothetical scenario can be considered "vain", but it does require a bit of imagination, that's true.
Okay, your answer is that you would do something like place yourself in front of whomever is being attacked, so as to take the brunt of whatever is being thrown at them, right? Okay......
In some rare instances, that might actually be effective in allowing your to sacrifice your life for theirs, which is of course a noble thing to do. But those instances are probably quite rare, even hypothetically.
More likely is something like a perpetrator who will, once you are dispatched, have "his way" with your whole family. In such a case, your sacrifice would be for naught, save a noble gesture. But the rest of your family would still be abused and/or dead.
On the contrary Sir. Nothing a Christian does in following Christ is for naught! Read the Gospel and believe and you shall inherit eternal life!
Mat 16:25 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.
Heb 6:15 And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise.
Phi 1:20 According to my earnest expectation and my hope, that in nothing I shall be ashamed, but that with all boldness, as always, so now also Christ shall be magnified in my body, whether it be by life, or by death.
Phi 1:21 For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.
Phi 1:22 But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labour: yet what I shall choose I wot not.
Phi 1:23 For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better:
Heb 4:1 Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it.
Heb 11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,
Heb 11:33 Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, (Now this is what I am talking about! Praise God!)
2Pe 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
1Jo 2:25 And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life.
Rom 4:20 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;
Rom 4:21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.
2Co 7:1 Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.
Gal 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
Tit 1:2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;
1Pe 4:16 Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf.
2Ti 1:12 For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.
Rom 5:5 And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.
Mar 8:38 Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.
Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
Phi 1:20 According to my earnest expectation and my hope, that in nothing I shall be ashamed, but that with all boldness, as always, so now also Christ shall be magnified in my body, whether it be by life, or by death.
2Ti 1:8 Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner: but be thou partaker of the afflictions of the gospel according to the power of God;
1Pe 3:16 Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.
1Jo 2:28 And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming.
Joh 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.
BiblicalTruth

reply from: yoda

Okay, I see your point, but my use of the words "for naught" was in regard to your effort to "protect" those you love by placing your body in front of them, passively.... it probably would NOT stop any attacker.
So, I take it by your scriptural quotes that you are saying (indirectly) that remaining true to your non-violent beliefs is of utmost importance to you, more important than preventing harm to your loved ones even. Well, that's fine. You seem consistent in your application of those beliefs, and I can't fault you for that. I don't personally agree with that principle, but I must respect any man (or woman) of principle who is true and consistent in following their principles and beliefs.
Now, my only other question is: do you spend as much time objecting to the violence against the 47 million babies as you spend objecting to the violence against the 3 baby killers? Or, to put it in perspective, do you spend 15 million times more effort speaking out against the killing of those babies as you do speaking out against the killing of those abortionists?
All I'm asking for here is proportionality. Even if you ignore the fact that the babies are as innocent as the driven snow, and the abortionists are as "guilty as sin", on a one for one basis there have been 15 million times more babies killed than abortionists.
Do you see what I'm saying?

reply from: BiblicalTruth

I understand your question completely and though your question is very misdirected and misleading I do not fault you for it. The reason I say this is that I am not protecting abortionist. I am exhorting CHRISTIANS? to the teachings of the bible regardless of who is on the receiving end of said violence. The confussion I suppose would come in that this site is specifically geared towards abortion. If this was a war site then someone might get confused and ask the question why do you protect the enemy? more than your ally? Based on my previous post I always protect my ally more as I am trying to get them to conform to the teachings of Christ which is the best thing anyone can do and in the big picture the only thing that matters. Christians actually get a special reward in heaven for dying for their faith...thus proving it ultimately. The goal in loving your enemy is to make them your ally if at all possible. Destroy hate through love.
BiblicalTruth

reply from: yoda

Okay, but here's the thing: not all prolifers are Christians, and in my estimation, this site is not here primarily as a platform to debate the principles of Christianity. It is here to fight abortion, as in "the abortion wars". In addition to which, many abortionists, and most definitely many, many supporters of abortion "rights" identify themselves as "Christians", so where is your ministry to them? Is it here? Do you spend a lot of time exhorting the proaborts that their violence against babies is wrong?
Do you spend 15 million times more time exhorting the proaborts that their violence against babies is wrong as you do the antiabortionists?

reply from: JohnGlenn

I really don't understand what you are saying? In what list?
the list that I posted oly the references. pay attention.
Right Ps 5 speaks about god hating the sinner (doer of iniquity)
Pay attention oh foolish one. Do I need to post those verses in context and embarass you?
I explained how you error in your conclusion about matthew. Take the verse in context. Do you know what that means? Or must I draw you a map? Read the verse just prior to the verse you pulled out of a hat. Those verse are speaking about an eye for an eye as the foundation for what Jesus is saying in verse 39. To take the one verse alone and claim it is not about vengence when the verses that preface what Christ is talkng about is ignored is a complete fabrication on your part.
What? Of one verse plucked from here and there? The references where removed to save space. Perhaps you like long posts with tons of previously read items over and over again. I think two or three times is plenty, especially when the integrety of the post is retained by saving the verse references.
Again your claim can only be mainatined when one reads the verse out of context. Why do you take this one verse without the preface that Christ places on the verse to come to your heresy? Do I need to post those verses in context and expose your heresy? Or will you read them on your own and be honest about them?
Scripture is the inspired word of God. We know this to be true, as it is written such. Where in the Bible does it say that these books are anything by writtings of man?
And that makes it not the writtings of man, how?

Prove ALL Christians believed this. Scripture speaks of believers who held lots of different thoughts. Why is 300-400 years later any better? Have you ever seen the game "repeat after me"?
Originally posted by: BiblicalTruth
The fact that you reject what they have to say implicity acknowledges that their view of scripture is different than yours thus you do not have an Apostolic view of scripture.
Only if their view can be proven to be correct. You have not accomplished that great task. All you have done is claim that the writtings of men are not writtings of men and post them as though they are the inspired word of God. If that is all you have, go home.

reply from: JohnGlenn

I can't even believe that you can allow your mind to think this way.
One can think that way when one sees thru the eyes of the preborn child.

reply from: JohnGlenn

Baby killing abortionist Britton was a "Christian"?
Your adjectives are way out of control. You are making less sense with every post.

reply from: JohnGlenn

It is a wise man who plans his pathway in advance.
This is not vain imagination. If it were, why did he answer it? He would have had to commit the sin of considering this "vain" imagination to have come up with the verse that he would apply for his reaction. If this is a "vain" imagination, Biblical Truth has willfully sinned while your error was of ignorance. Which do you suppose God hates most?

Timothy Dwight of Yale Seminary observes that the Bible teaches its truth, not primarily through the intellect or emotions, but through the imagination, through figures and metaphors. Christ used parables often to share vision of the correct pathway.
In scripture vainity has to do with "self" and implies pride, your scenerio was about his wife- and nothing to do with self serving interests but proper planning. Though it appears that you hit the button on the nose about pridefulness.
To be challenged to consider how we might react to a situation when we have made claims of what we would do I will "never a drop of blood" is not vain imagination. Vision begins, after all, in heaven, not on earth.
Nehemiah was not guilty of vain imagination when he pictured the broken down wall in Jerusalem standing, because God had put it in his heart (Nehemiah 1:12). And neither are you for asking the perameters of this posters claim. You are asking his vision of defense and if his vision is consistant in all applications or just with abortion doctors.

reply from: BiblicalTruth

Well Yodavater if the principals of Christianity are under attack I am going to defend them. In my conversations with Sigma I am more than happy to defend the unborn. Of course the foundation of my arguement is going to be Christian and I believe that is to be expected.
Calling yourself something and being something are two different things. I don't think that however is what you are raising here. I spend as much time as possible telling abotionists....ie anyone who is pro-choice....(where ever they are) that what they are doing is wrong on all levels...spirtual, human, logical, emotional and so on...one of my favorite witnessing times was crashing a Planned Parenthood party. Boy they did not like that. If only they would feel that way about killing babies. Can you imagine having a party to promote abortion? Some people brought their children even. BARF
1Jo 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
To measure time spent is....i dunno. Like I said above I spend as much time at the clinics and witnessing as possible. I do not always get out everyweek. Sometimes I get out multiple times a week. Bottom line is a do Christian ministry to whomever I am grouped with whatever the topic.
I feel that the pro-life movement would be much more successful if they did not put their faith in their physical means and had more faith in God. This in the end helps everyone.
BiblicalTruth

reply from: JohnGlenn

We saw this with the violent action of Concerned Parent that put him in jail. He was real active in violence when it came to his own murderous sister's rapist but so far we have not heard any action he took to stop her from killing his niece or nephew. I guess there is no consistency in application with CP.
He defends the meer honour of his sister yet did nothing to stop her from killing? What sort of honor does such a person have that is worthy of defending?

reply from: yoda

After I had already responded to that post, I realized that he probably meant "vain" in the sense of "not accomplishing the goal", rather than the selfish kind of "vain". But I still disagree with the implication, either way.
Yes, that is the first question, and so far I'll have to say he's been consistent. I still disagree with the idea that it's more moral to be passive while someone is killing babies than to try to restrain them, however. I honestly believe that I could not stand by in view of such an act and remain passive, and I'm not proud that I stand outside a clinic and remain passive, either, but I do.
So all that remains is to question why anyone who opposes violence is not spending 15 million times more time opposing the killing of babies as they are opposing killing abortionists. After all, isn't every (innocent) life worth the same thing?

reply from: JohnGlenn

WRONG! You are arguing the opposite of this. You speak ONLY of "teachings of the Bible" about NONviolence. When do the "teachings of the bible" speak about who IS on the receiving end of violence. You have yet to speak about those times and those people. Who are they?
Why do you lie?

reply from: JohnGlenn

yes, I see what you are saying. I wonder if he can answer honestly without any vain imaginations, tho-

reply from: JohnGlenn

Good point! Let's see what he has to say. Probably it will be to remove the mirror you ask him to look into and point to the abortion abolisionists. Or some more acusations of vain questioning.

reply from: JohnGlenn

but like you said from the beginning the question was not designed for him, but rather for the person who innitiated this forum thread.
I agree. The Bible says the "Gates" of Hell shall not prevail. Against what? Passiveness? How much force must a "gate" be able to withstand against nonforce?

That still remians unanswered.

reply from: faithman

one thing we can agree on, education goes a very long way in bringing folk to the life side. I have yet to find a more all around effective tool than the pictures of pre-borns for that purpose. We resently hadf a woman give testimony over a city ordinance specificly aimed at pro-lifers. She said if she had not seen the picture[I Am A Person], she would have killed the child in her arms.Let's let the womb child speak for themselves. Let us get this info in front of as many eyes as we can. If your motive is to stop abortion, then I AM A PERSON does exactly that. Or we could just waist time fussing over non issues on a chat forum.

reply from: yoda

I defend the morality of those who use force against abortionists, and I'm not religious. Do you feel compelled to defend the principles of Christianity against my (non-Christian) defense of those actions?
Sounds like productive activities. Yes, I've heard of such things. I've also heard that at some of their parties they have rooms set aside for viewing porno films. Porno is compatible with abortion, because those engaging in casual sex like to have a way to escape financial responsibility when pregnancy results.
I may be seeing an unrepresentative segment of your activity, but it still bothers me a little that you seemingly do not acknowledge the disparity between the 47 million babies and the 3 abortionists. Would you spend this much time exhorting 3 anonymous "Christian" people who had killed before, if their killings had nothing to do with abortion? Or is there something special about the killing of abortionists that you think merits special attention?

reply from: yoda

Exactly. But that little bit of hypocrisy remains to be addressed by the author of this thread.

reply from: yoda

Yes, it does, and I'm proud to carry that poster to the abortuary every Saturday.
Recently I had the honor to speak with Joe Scheidler, in person, in Rapid City, SD. We had an interesting discussion about the use of graphic images by prolifers/antiabortionists, and he said that he prefers not to use them because he thinks they don't work as well as emphasizing the harm abortion does to women. My response was that first of all, my "personal preference" is to emphasize the plight of the victim as my top priority, rather than the harm to the perpetrator of the violence, and second I think that he's right that some women do respond better to an appeal to "selfish interests" than anything else, but that other women respond better to an appeal to their conscience about them killing their baby. And, I added, a protester can only do one thing at a time, he/she can't split their message up. He agreed with that.
Like you say about the I AM A PERSON poster, I have seen graphic images work wonders. CBR's website (www.abortionno.com) has a special section for testimonials by people whose minds have been changed by the graphic photos, and I've seen it happen personally. I know it works. And, I can say in all honesty, I know of NO reports of anyone ever being pushed towards becoming a proabort because of the graphic photos. It just doesn't happen. So you have positive, provable results, and no negative results as far as helping the babies. We may make some people mad at us, but that doesn't seem to ever result in making them mad at babies or more likely to support killing babies.

reply from: BiblicalTruth

Originally posted by: JohnGlenn
Pay attention oh foolish one. Do I need to post those verses in context and embarass you?
I explained how you error in your conclusion about matthew. Take the verse in context. Do you know what that means? Or must I draw you a map? Read the verse just prior to the verse you pulled out of a hat. Those verse are speaking about an eye for an eye as the foundation for what Jesus is saying in verse 39. To take the one verse alone and claim it is not about vengence when the verses that preface what Christ is talkng about is ignored is a complete fabrication on your part.
Why don't you just post the verses instead of running your mouth? You deleted the text from the verses I posted before and now you threaten to post the verses to scare me? rather then put them out for all to see? What is this? I might futher point out that I posted 5:38 with the original post in the context that you are speaking about. Matthew 5:38 is a quote from Exodus 21, Leviticus 24 and Deuteronomy 19.
They have so much more to do with the context than you can imagine. I will do what you threatened with? You are so bizarre!
We will start with Exodus 21 as it is the most directly related and comes first.
22"If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall (N)pay as the judges decide. (As you can see this directly relates to the abortion issue. This is the context that he is quoting in matthew 38 then he says not to do this.)
23"But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life,
24eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
Next we have Leviticus 24
17'If a man takes the life of any human being, he shall surely be put to death. (His command in Matthew 5:39 ...to resist not evil...keeps us from preventing the taking of the original human (innocent) life and the taking of the second one (offender). This does not mean that the state should not execute the abotionist.)
18'The one who takes the life of an animal shall make it good, life for life.
19'If a man injures his neighbor, just as he has done, so it shall be done to him:
20fracture for fracture, ye for eye, tooth for tooth; just as he has injured a man, so it shall be inflicted on him.
21'Thus the one who kills an animal shall make it good, but he one who kills a man shall be put to death.
22'There shall be one standard for you; it shall be for the stranger as well as the native, for I am the LORD your God.'"
23Then Moses spoke to the sons of Israel, and they brought the one who had cursed outside the camp and stoned him with stones. Thus the sons of Israel did, just as the LORD had commanded Moses.
Lastly Deuteronomy 19
18"The judges shall investigate thoroughly, and if the witness is a false witness and he has accused his brother falsely, (I might mention that this was left to the judges to decide not one man)
19then you shall do to him just as he had intended to do to his brother. Thus you shall purge the evil from among you.
20"The rest will hear and be afraid, and will never again do such an evil thing among you.
21"Thus you shall not show pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. (More of the same)
Here is the context in Matthew 5
Mat 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
Mat 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Mat 5:40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.
Mat 5:41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
Mat 5:42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
Mat 5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
Mat 5:44 But I say unto you, [b}love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you , and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; (I know is it mind boggling but praying for is not equal to shooting them)
Mat 5:45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
Mat 5:46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
Mat 5:47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
Mat 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
Originally posted by: JohnGlenn
What? Of one verse plucked from here and there? The references where removed to save space. Perhaps you like long posts with tons of previously read items over and over again. I think two or three times is plenty, especially when the integrety of the post is retained by saving the verse references.
Like I said above originally I included Matthew 5:38 with 5:39. This is the context that you are speaking about and I have thoroughly refuted your accusations that you did not bother to demonstrate with the complete context not just the New Testment verse next to it. Also I include all the text so no misunderstanding take place like what happened with my post that got taken out of context on the other message due to the whole text not being there.
Originally posted by: JohnGlenn
Again your claim can only be mainatined when one reads the verse out of context. Why do you take this one verse without the preface that Christ places on the verse to come to your heresy? Do I need to post those verses in context and expose your heresy? Or will you read them on your own and be honest about them?
Actually I have posted them here so ALL can see how rediculous you are.
The concept that you refer to "their" view makes you unbiblical.
2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
You human reasoning about the game "Operator" passing information down gets corrupted is unscriptural!
Jud 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
May I remind you that "The Bible" did not exist until these men who you say don't know what they are taking about put it together for you.
2Th 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
2Th 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.
BiblicalTruth

reply from: BiblicalTruth

You are not fooling anyone!
Jam 4:13 Go to now, ye that say, To day or to morrow we will go into such a city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain:
Jam 4:14 Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away.
Jam 4:15 For that ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that.
Jam 4:16 But now ye rejoice in your boastings: all such rejoicing is evil.
Jam 4:17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.
Mat 6:25 Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?
Mat 6:26 Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?
Mat 6:27 Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?
Mat 6:28 And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin:
Mat 6:29 And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.
Mat 6:30 Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?
Mat 6:31 Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?
Mat 6:32 (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.
Mat 6:33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
Mat 6:34 Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.
BiblicalTruth

reply from: BiblicalTruth

This reply of mine I think leaves much room for abuse but I am going to post it anyway. I never said that non resistance is "moral" per se. Our morals if based on our understanding just don't cut the mustard. Morals from God's understanding are Godly. So I guess I would say I am promoting a more Godly position rather than moral. Maybe I am just playing with words? I guess my concern is that Godliness is much more stable in it's identification than morality in our current world. If the resurection was not a reality the position of non-resistance would be stupid and irresponsable.
Joh 5:29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.
Act 24:15 And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.
Joh 11:25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
BiblicalTruth

reply from: JohnGlenn

You don't have a Bible?
Jesus speaking of an eye for an eye is vengeance. The verses are about vengeance You have only proven my point. This is not about defense, but about vengeance.
Becauase I say that "thier" view those of pasifist has not been proven is unscriptural? How is the fact that I expose you and others (they) having not proven it, unscriptural?
If applied to scripture perhaps. But the writtings of man that you posted are not scripture.
Your claim is that these men Clement of Rome, Mathetes, Polycarp, Ignatius, Barnabas, Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hermas, Tatian, Theophilus, Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria, etc to who you linked are the authors of the Holy Bible?
Prove this. Which books of the Bible did they author? Probably those of catholic heresy, right?

reply from: BiblicalTruth

Praise GOD faithman. I Love it. Here is a Psalm that I think we should recite for our activities.
Psa 25:1 <A Psalm of David.> Unto thee, O LORD, do I lift up my soul.
Psa 25:2 O my God, I trust in thee: let me not be ashamed, let not mine enemies triumph over me.
Psa 25:3 Yea, let none that wait on thee be ashamed: let them be ashamed which transgress without cause.
Psa 25:4 Shew me thy ways, O LORD; teach me thy paths.
Psa 25:5 Lead me in thy truth, and teach me: for thou art the God of my salvation; on thee do I wait all the day.
Psa 25:6 Remember, O LORD, thy tender mercies and thy lovingkindnesses; for they have been ever of old.
Psa 25:7 Remember not the sins of my youth, nor my transgressions: according to thy mercy remember thou me for thy goodness' sake, O LORD.
Psa 25:8 Good and upright is the LORD: therefore will he teach sinners in the way.
Psa 25:9 The meek will he guide in judgment: and the meek will he teach his way.
Psa 25:10 All the paths of the LORD are mercy and truth unto such as keep his covenant and his testimonies.
Psa 25:11 For thy name's sake, O LORD, pardon mine iniquity; for it is great.
Psa 25:12 What man is he that feareth the LORD? him shall he teach in the way that he shall choose.
Psa 25:13 His soul shall dwell at ease; and his seed shall inherit the earth.
Psa 25:14 The secret of the LORD is with them that fear him; and he will shew them his covenant.
Psa 25:15 Mine eyes are ever toward the LORD; for he shall pluck my feet out of the net.
Psa 25:16 Turn thee unto me, and have mercy upon me; for I am desolate and afflicted.
Psa 25:17 The troubles of my heart are enlarged: O bring thou me out of my distresses.
Psa 25:18 Look upon mine affliction and my pain; and forgive all my sins.
Psa 25:19 Consider mine enemies; for they are many; and they hate me with cruel hatred.
Psa 25:20 O keep my soul, and deliver me: let me not be ashamed; for I put my trust in thee.
Psa 25:21 Let integrity and uprightness preserve me; for I wait on thee.
Psa 25:22 Redeem Israel, O God, out of all his troubles.
BiblicalTruth

reply from: JohnGlenn

You are not fooling anyone!
Nor are you when you claimed "vain imagination" as the heretics new escape clause to not say "I am a coward".

reply from: JohnGlenn

Since you are not able to show that God commanding His men to kill is imoral or ungodly- that is probably the case. You are just messing with words. Your mess is heresy.

reply from: yoda

Okay. So then regardless of what you emotionally believe to be "moral", your will go with what you think is the proper interpretation of scripture? Well, isn't that a moral decision?

reply from: godless

Why does every one hate this robert ferguson so much. The on thing that turns me off to religion, is the way you "christians" devour one another.

reply from: yoda

Not everyone hates Robert here. I kinda like the guy, myself.

reply from: JohnGlenn

Okay. So then regardless of what you emotionally believe to be "moral", your will go with what you think is the proper interpretation of scripture? Well, isn't that a moral decision?
And planning in advance too.
I thought christians were not supposed to entertain such "vain imaginations".

reply from: JohnGlenn

"godless" Now that's funny. I love the spell check in your signature.

reply from: JohnGlenn

But what do you know, you "agnostic heathen". Wher edo these guys get these names, "godless", "jesus sucks" It seems like "Biblical untruth" brings them out of the wood work.

reply from: BiblicalTruth

Originally posted by: BiblicalTruth
Okay. So then regardless of what you emotionally believe to be "moral", your will go with what you think is the proper interpretation of scripture? Well, isn't that a moral decision?
This is the WHOLE question. The scripture was explained to those who knew the apostles and that tradition has passed down. Now you have everyone and his red headed stepchild interpreting the bible and hence the mess that we have now. The faith was once delivered, was acted out or lived and we have a complete historical record of this. Without anything to back up their opinion noone has any authority to say what I am saying about scripture is wrong other than their own imaginary one.
BiblicalTruth

reply from: JohnGlenn

Your claim is that these men Clement of Rome, Mathetes, Polycarp, Ignatius, Barnabas, Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hermas, Tatian, Theophilus, Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria, etc to who you linked are the authors of the Holy Bible?
Prove this. Which books of the Bible did they author? Probably those of catholic heresy, right?

reply from: JohnGlenn

WRONG! You are arguing the opposite of this. You speak ONLY of "teachings of the Bible" about NONviolence. When do the "teachings of the bible" speak about who IS on the receiving end of violence. You have yet to speak about those times and those people. Who are they?
Why do you lie?
Still waiting

reply from: BiblicalTruth

I never claimed they wrote any of the canonized books. I intended for you to understand they protected and kept and helped to decide what was canonized. You said you have read them I thought you would get it.
BiblicalTruth

reply from: BiblicalTruth

Originally posted by: JohnGlenn
WRONG! You are arguing the opposite of this. You speak ONLY of "teachings of the Bible" about NONviolence. When do the "teachings of the bible" speak about who IS on the receiving end of violence. You have yet to speak about those times and those people. Who are they?
Resist not evil is so basic. If they have lost an eye someone obviously did not resist the evil.
BiblicalTruth

reply from: BiblicalTruth

They can't hide when the light shines
BiblicalTruth

reply from: JohnGlenn


Of these men Clement of Rome, Mathetes, Polycarp, Ignatius, Barnabas, Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hermas, Tatian, Theophilus, Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria, , which authored books in the Bible and which had red headed step children? I have to wonder how many red headed step children you have disowned so you are able to claim the "proper" interpretation of the Bible.

reply from: JohnGlenn

There must be a reason that their writtings were not considered the insprired Word of God but rather meer writtings of mortal men. Failures. Not living up to the standards of God's word. yet you want them to be read as though they are gospel. I prefer the Bible, you know the "teachings of the bible" speaking about who IS on the receiving end of violence. You have yet to speak about those times and those people. Who are they?
You speak ONLY of "teachings of the Bible" about NONviolence. Why do you love only a portion of God and His Word?

reply from: JohnGlenn

I think the saying is the other way-
Since none have scattered or ran, there must not be any light shone on them by your Biblical Untruth.

reply from: godless

Blah blah blah. What about the fetus? Do they count in this holy war of unholy words? Or is this just a place to trade insults in a battle of one ups man ship.

reply from: BiblicalTruth

Not sure what you have read but if you can complain about my comments you must have read them therefore you should understand that I myself do not think that any bloodshed is acceptable except the judgement by God's ordained ministers for such. In our case the government. Being that the unborn are innocent there is no reason for the government to kill them rather they should protect them. The unbord have been dehumanized just like everyother people group that has been on the receiving end of genocide. I have a post that I take witness that has a picture of the holocaust, a kkk hanging and a 10 week abortion. It says under each respective picture..ungentile, unwhite, unborn. I think it is obvious.
BiblicalTruth

reply from: JohnGlenn

I myself do not think that any bloodshed is acceptable except the judgement by God's ordained ministers for such.
How about Moses, Phinehas, Ehud, and many others? Ordained or not? You claim Paul Hill was not ordained by God? Prove it.

reply from: BiblicalTruth

Originally posted by: BiblicalTruth
I never claimed they wrote any of the canonized books.
Originally posted by: JohnGlenn
There must be a reason that their writtings were not considered the insprired Word of God but rather meer writtings of mortal men. Failures. Not living up to the standards of God's word.
Well then they considered themselves failures as they are the ones that helped decided what to be canonized. You are rediculous. They themselves did not consider their words to be scripture anymore than Matthew Henry or Gill or Clarke or any of the common day names known for commentaries. They did however know that they practiced the faith as it was handed to them and kept and preserved this faith for us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations
Yeah so do all these hundreds of denominations who don't agree on the "interpritation" of the bible.
I think that you are talking about innocent people at the receiving end of violence. If they are already mentioned as receiving violence then no-one resisted. The Lord will repay. If you want to know who the protector of the innocent are it is God. If I am off about what you are trying to get out of me please explain or give an example.
That is what we are discussing. What other topic would you like me to cover with you?
BiblicalTruth

reply from: godless

Not everybody that is pro-life is christian. But us that don't hold onto a 2000 year old dead dude are often excluded from pro-life stuff. Seems like most have a hidden agenda. accept our jesus or you can't be pro-life. Can't we just protect the little ones first, and then worry about what they may believe later? Or do we have to "get saved" to be pro-life? And just who is right so I can insult the right one? For it seems that "christianity" is a game of insult the false christian.

reply from: BiblicalTruth

The New Testament raises the bar on many things and the resistance to violence is one of them.
2Co 3:14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.
Heb 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
Sabbath Day
Dietary Laws
Mode of Worship
How we pray
Holy Days
Gentile/Jew issues
Animal Sacrifices
Entering the Holy of Holies
Any violent action
...
BiblicalTruth

reply from: BiblicalTruth

It is a blessing to have anyone and everyone stand for the Pro Life issue and the unborn. We can't really worry about their salvation until they are allowed to live...In any issue whether Christian or secular, people debate truth. Do you believe in Absolute Truth? Please feel free to share your opinions as to modes and options for ending the attrocities of abortion.
BiblicalTruth

reply from: JohnGlenn

yet you want them to be considered when they do not consider themselves worthy? Talk about ridiculous.
So hundreds of denoms are wrong and you alone are right- yet you admitted earlier that you do not even hold to the teachings of the Catholic church concerning 'limbo'. Talk about ridiculous.
as usual you think wrong.
and God does not use His people any longer?
Don't play stupid. You have been given plenty of scriptural examples of the us eof violence.
That is what YOU are discussing. Many others are talking about the use of force.
the use of violence to defend life. That is what we are discussing.

reply from: JohnGlenn

The New Testament raises the bar on many things and the resistance to violence is one of them.
Really? Then why does Timothy teach us that our doctrine is to be found in the scriptures of the OT?
Now try to actually answer the question this time.
How about Moses, Phinehas, Ehud, and many others? Ordained or not? You claim Paul Hill was not ordained by God? Prove it.

reply from: BiblicalTruth

Originally posted by: JohnGlenn
yet you want them to be considered when they do not consider themselves worthy? Talk about ridiculous.
2Pe 2:16 But was rebuked for his iniquity: the dumb ass speaking with man's voice forbad the madness of the prophet.
Balaam's Dumb Ass has more sense than you! You said they are failures not me. You are equating them to scripture not me or them. If they equated themselves with scripture they would be in our Bible. What I have said and will say it again so you can get it is that they demonstrate how scripture was handed down to the saints once for all and carried on the apostolic tradition. They called themselves the catholic church because Catholic means universal and they all believed the same atleast on the major points of doctrine. And just for some more clarification on your misunderstandings The Roman Catholic church is not the ONLY catholic Church. They are a group of Catholics...that is why they put ROMAN in front of it.
As if I am the only one who obeys the Lords command on non-resistance.
BiblicalTruth

reply from: JesusSucks

Originally posted by: BiblicalTruth
Okay. So then regardless of what you emotionally believe to be "moral", your will go with what you think is the proper interpretation of scripture? Well, isn't that a moral decision?
This is the WHOLE question. The scripture was explained to those who knew the apostles and that tradition has passed down. Now you have everyone and his red headed stepchild interpreting the bible and hence the mess that we have now. The faith was once delivered, was acted out or lived and we have a complete historical record of this. Without anything to back up their opinion noone has any authority to say what I am saying about scripture is wrong other than their own imaginary one.
BiblicalTruth
logical fallacy of appeal to authority. that's what i hate about you catholic and christian types. the jesus you all imagine is the one i think sucks.

reply from: BiblicalTruth

Originally posted by: JohnGlenn
How about Moses, Phinehas, Ehud, and many others? Ordained or not? You claim Paul Hill was not ordained by God? Prove it.
Originally posted by: BiblicalTruth
The New Testament raises the bar on many things and the resistance to violence is one of them.
Originally posted by: JohnGlenn
Really? Then why does Timothy teach us that our doctrine is to be found in the scriptures of the OT?
Now try to actually answer the question this time.
Heb 10:1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
The law is specifically what you are speaking about. It was only a shadow. The Old Testament also contains prophesy and praise and character of God and Historical material all of which we can learn from and understand proper doctrine.
BiblicalTruth

reply from: RobertFerguson

You are not fooling anyone!

Yoda's hypothetical was about considering what the right plan of action is for a time of battle.
It is dishonest to try and claim that John Glenn was referring to the cares of the morrow instead of preparing for battle.
Believers are watchmen on the wall. We sound the trumpet for to warn, we sound the trumpet for war, we sound the trumpet for the return of the Lord in Judgment.
You imply that it is wrong to plan for how one is to react yet this is unscriptural.
1 Corinthinthians 14:8 For if the trumpet gave an uncertain sound, who would prepare himself for war?
How does one prepare for war if they do not consider their actions and path?
John Glenn and Yoda were just asking that our minds are girded and ready for an answer as to how we would react.
It appears you have allowed your pride to get in the way of your witness, implying things that were a part of the posters intent for your own self posturing.
You claimed this was "vain" imagination, but when shown this was not, you backed down rather quickly from your high horse. In fact, even when you considered such to be 'vain imagination" you continued posting how you imagine you might react. It is shameful to claim it is a sin and yet participate in it.

reply from: JohnGlenn

Originally posted by: JohnGlenn
Really? Then why does Timothy teach us that our doctrine is to be found in the scriptures of the OT?
Now try to actually answer the question this time.
you are a deceitful person. You did not answer the question and in fact elliminated it.
Try again How about Moses, Phinehas, Ehud, and many others? Ordained or not? You claim Paul Hill was not ordained by God? Prove it. Why does Timothy teach us that our doctrine is to be found in the scriptures of the OT?

reply from: BiblicalTruth

Originally posted by: BiblicalTruth
You are not fooling anyone!
Originally posted by: RobertFerguson
Yoda's hypothetical was about considering what the right plan of action is for a time of battle.
What planning does one need. We have been told what to do in Worldly battles. Resist not evil. We have been told what to do in Spiritual Battles. We do not need to do any planning. The scriptures that I posted are about planning for anything. We are to walk with our Lord and Pray Daily for our bread and protection.
Plans for Battle are certainly cares for the morrow.
Obeying commands to sound the trumpet do not require imaginations nor plans only obedience. The act of blowing the trumpet is not a plan for tomorrow but an exclamation of Prophosy of Christ as he KNOWS what is going to happen. Our imaginations are worthless and the whole point is for us to trust in him in every circumstance.
By being guided by Christ when the time comes. We are commanded no to fret about anything future as there is enough evil for today.
And being a Christian I do not imagine these situations and wanted to point out it was sin before I gave the answer that Christ gave me.
Luk 12:11 And when they bring you unto the synagogues, and unto magistrates, and powers, take ye no thought how or what thing ye shall answer, or what ye shall say:
Luk 12:12 For the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say.
This could be extrapolated into action also if it needed to be but the other verses i posted do this already and show that it is correct to understand it this way.
Act 26:18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.
Maybe it appears that way to you. I feel bad for you. I did not vainly imagine the scenario and was simply trying to instruct him in the way of the Lord. As shown above I gave the answer I was given.
He is not constrained to the laws of the Lord so I did not engage in any sin.
Rom 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
BiblicalTruth

reply from: godless

The problem with abortion, is that the law has been so mangled that we can not staghten it out. On one hand we have the right to bear arms and protect ourselves, and others. Heck, we can even proteck our property. But some how we do this moral skitsiod hoo doo dance when it comes to the helpless fetus. Then we have these christians that say it is wrong to pop the abortionist, but a o k to kill iraqies to socker mom has cheaper gas for the suv. So it is o k in the name of a full tank, but totally wrong to plug a baby butcher? Just what kind of stupid god do you serve anyway? And just why would any free thinking sain person want to join a club with such a conflicted "leader"?

reply from: BiblicalTruth

Originally posted by: BiblicalTruth
The law is specifically what you are speaking about. It was only a shadow. The Old Testament also contains prophesy and praise and character of God and Historical material all of which we can learn from and understand proper doctrine.
Originally posted by: JohnGlenn
you are a deceitful person. Exo 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. You did not answer the question and in fact elliminated it.
I answered your question thoroughly and completely and more than eliminated your question I destroyed your arguement and now you are bitter about it. I answered explicity what doctrine Paul's letter to Timothy says we get from the Old Testament without doing any damage to any other verses specifically New Testament Doctrine.
BiblicalTruth

reply from: JohnGlenn

BiblicalUnTruth,
Certainly it is your claim that you were given this without any thought. However scripture states that we ARE to delve into the character of God with our MINDS.
Psalms 144:1 "Blessed be the LORD my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight".
How does one learn to fight if they do not plan?
Ps 18:34 - 'He teaches my hands to make war, So that my arms can bend a bow of bronze. '
You do not embrace this God, do you?
He has not taught you, has he?

reply from: BiblicalTruth

The Law is mangled and can be mangled thus we should not rely on it. We should rely on something unchangeable like God.
Christians who promote violence of any kind are not obeying Christ's commands plain and simple. They will be judged. What that judgement is I am not at liberty to say. I am sorry that you have given you a bad taste for Christians by being as convoluted (mixed up) as the laws that you have rightly pointed out.
Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.
We have a banner that we take to the abortion clinic that says:
War is Murder
Just like Abortion
No-one knows what to do with it because it convicts liberals and conservatives. That is the way of Christ. Christians change hearts not laws. Be not of this World!
BiblicalTruth

reply from: JohnGlenn

The Bible speaks of protecting property, yes. Not just the law of man. It seems that a Just God would allow the same for a helpless fetus, yes?

reply from: JohnGlenn

No, you have not addressed these questions.
Try again for the fifth time. How about Moses, Phinehas, Ehud, and many others? Ordained or not? You claim Paul Hill was not ordained by God? Prove it. Why does Timothy teach us that our doctrine is to be found in the scriptures of the OT?
I'll even break it down for you, to help you.. cause you like really long posts.
How about Moses, Ordained or not?
Answer____________________
Phinehas, Ordained or not?
Answer____________________
Ehud, and many others? Ordained or not?
Answer____________________
You claim Paul Hill was not ordained by God? Prove it.
A____________________________
Why does Timothy teach us that our doctrine is to be found in the scriptures of the OT?
A_______________________________________

reply from: JohnGlenn

John 10:30 "I (Jesus) and the Father are One."
We all know that God commanded many men to kill.

reply from: BiblicalTruth

How is meditating on God's nature the same as making plans for tomorrow. I can see how you can pervert this but it would be dishonest. You know what kind of plans the scripture is speaking about. I would say maybe that coming to a better understanding of God's nature would make you more obedient not more farsighted. Keep in mind that the context of the verses are thinking about negative things also.

Well if you read what the Psalm says that you quote the Lord Teaches you. "Scratches head..."
I do not reject any of the Old Testament. There are many heathens I am sure you have run across that do this. Cry about his Judgement in the OT. I also love what he has called us to in the New!
BiblicalTruth

reply from: BiblicalTruth

Originally posted by: JohnGlenn
No, you have not addressed these questions.
Try again for the fifth time. How about Moses, Phinehas, Ehud, and many others? Ordained or not? You claim Paul Hill was not ordained by God? Prove it. Why does Timothy teach us that our doctrine is to be found in the scriptures of the OT?
I'll even break it down for you, to help you.. cause you like really long posts. (I removed the extra line breaks for you)
How about Moses, Ordained or not?
Answer_____YES____________
Phinehas, Ordained or not?
Answer_____YES____________
Ehud, and many others? Ordained or not?
Answer_____YES____________
These Saints obeyed what they were commanded and did not break any of their Lords commandments when they did it so there is no way "SOMETHING ELSE" commanded them to do. Anyway the Bible holds them high.
Answer: Paul Hill broke is Lord's commands on the Sermon on the Mount along with others and Jesus does not contradict himself.
Answer: We do not get doctrine for the law in the Old Testament. It was only a shadow of what was to come.This by no means invalidates Paul's statement as the Old Testament also contains prophesy and praise and character of God and Historical material all of which we can learn from and understand proper doctrine.
BiblicalTruth

reply from: godless

The Law is mangled and can be mangled thus we should not rely on it. We should rely on something unchangeable like God.
Christians who promote violence of any kind are not obeying Christ's commands plain and simple. They will be judged. What that judgement is I am not at liberty to say. I am sorry that you have given you a bad taste for Christians by being as convoluted (mixed up) as the laws that you have rightly pointed out.
Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.
We have a banner that we take to the abortion clinic that says:
War is Murder
Just like Abortion
No-one knows what to do with it because it convicts liberals and conservatives. That is the way of Christ. Christians change hearts not laws. Be not of this World!
BiblicalTruth
blah blah blah. Hyper spiritual gobldy gook. Lets all just run out and let the bad guys kill us in the name of christ. If someone shoots at me, I shot back. If someone is about to take a knife to a kid, you and your jesus will just have to put your hands over your eyes so you won't get offended at what I am about to do. That is one of the main things that keeps me out of the ranks of the christ dudes. They have wet clammy limp hand shakes, an almost efemanit way about them, and are a bunch of cowards who condemn those who kill to keep them free. You get on these threads and all you see is pasive agessives who strike such supirior poses of self righteousness, and then depend on others to maintain their liberty. If that is your jesus you can keep him.

reply from: BiblicalTruth

It is very obvious that God does not change but what man is commanded to do does. God's longsuffering and patience changes what he expects of Men as time goes on gets raised up a level as he reveals more to us.
Act 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
BiblicalTruth

reply from: yoda

But what do you know, you "agnostic heathen". Where do these guys get these names, "godless", "jesus sucks" It seems like "Biblical untruth" brings them out of the wood work.
Hmm...... I'm torn between calling myself "heathen", "pagan", or "goyim". They've all got their fine points....
But these odd screen names (in contrast to my popular one)..... they are an oddity. I dunno, maybe they're trying to get a rise out of us, you suppose?

reply from: yoda

Okay. I was thinking that, but I wasn't going to say it, for fear of offending someone. So, without any "authority", and with so many sincere Christians disagreeing on how to interpret scriptures, what is your moral compass? Just your opinion?

reply from: yoda

I've been trying to figure that out for months. Seems to me that's our reason for flocking to this website like moths around a flame. Or is there some other reason I don't know about?

reply from: BiblicalTruth

Rom 8:6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
Why are you afraid of physical death?
You can do whatever you want to. I am not going to be offended at what you do especially if you were to want to attempt to do something kind for me. I am commanded not to resist evil. You are not.
Rom 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
I do have cold hands often but you will not get a limp handshake.
1Co 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
First of all my Lord keeps me free. I do not condemn you. I pray for our country and our military that there might be peace and that they would have safety and comfort. Do you know what the Pax Romana was? It was the greatest time of peace on earth. During this time the Christians prayed for peace and did not get involved in the government or military. They had arguements with the heathen about how their prayer was what was keeping the peace. When the Christians joined in with the Roman government in 325 Rome started to fall.
Rom 10:6 But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above:
Rom 10:7 Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)
Rom 10:8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
I don't depend on you for anything. I don't even know you. You seem to feel comfortable making rash statements about people you don't know though.
BiblicalTruth

reply from: yoda

Lay it on me, brother, I'm so right I don't even have a left hand or foot. And I'm a heathen/pagan/goyim scapegoat, too.

reply from: BiblicalTruth

Originally posted by: yodavater
Okay. I was thinking that, but I wasn't going to say it, for fear of offending someone. So, without any "authority", and with so many sincere Christians disagreeing on how to interpret scriptures, what is your moral compass? Just your opinion?
Just their opinion is the majority position. Catholics however would look to the Chuch that the Apostles setup to get doctrine therefore our authority is Apostolic. Obviously on minor points there are various opinions but hey God gave us that for conversation points We have thousands of documents from the 70 AD period through 325 AD obviously more continuing on but this is the period that I am most interested in as it seems to be pure from human additions. There were people trying to add or subtract from the church for sure but they were soundly refuted by the christians of the time and it is all documented.
BiblicalTruth

reply from: JesusSucks

Okay. I was thinking that, but I wasn't going to say it, for fear of offending someone. So, without any "authority", and with so many sincere Christians disagreeing on how to interpret scriptures, what is your moral compass? Just your opinion?
catholics claim to have the traditions passed down as if to say there is no broken chain involved. we are suppose to believe them because they say so. that doesnt work. also there are many factions within the catholic church too. it isn't monolythic as they would have you believe. besides, as this same person said earlier to me, just because many from ones past have it wrong doesnt mean i do. it would be nonsequitur to sauggest a connection.

reply from: yoda

Well you have a more colorful way of expressing it, but that's pretty much what I was saying about the Vatican's Swiss Guards. They are paid to do the physical task of "violently" protecting the Vatican and everyone in it, but employing them is the same as being violent yourself, IMO.
Same is true of saying "we have the police to take care of child killers"...... hey, the police are just doing your dirty work, unless you actively advocate letting all child molesters go free....... and I don't see anyone here doing that. So that makes all of us a party to the "violence" of the police.
Hey, I'm down with that, bro.

reply from: BiblicalTruth

Originally posted by: yodavater
Okay. I was thinking that, but I wasn't going to say it, for fear of offending someone. So, without any "authority", and with so many sincere Christians disagreeing on how to interpret scriptures, what is your moral compass? Just your opinion?
Originally posted by: JesusSucks
catholics claim to have the traditions passed down as if to say there is no broken chain involved. we are suppose to believe them because they say so. that doesnt work. also there are many factions within the catholic church too. it isn't monolythic as they would have you believe. besides, as this same person said earlier to me, just because many from ones past have it wrong doesnt mean i do. it would be nonsequitur to sauggest a connection.
Not because they say so but because you can read and examine it for yourself. Blind faith is not a saving faith. For a Christian to impose beliefs on someone that did not really believe but because they had to would do nothing besides get them both in trouble in the judgement.
The human organizations have differences but the faith is very similar.
Basic Creed that any Christian should accept. All Catholics do.
Apostles Creed
I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:
Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into hell.
The third day He arose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.
Amen.
BiblicalTruth

reply from: yoda

No, not the majority position, it's your position I'm asking about.
Now, I don't know if you realize it or not, but there has never been, and never will be a time when every single question about interpretation of scriptures or any other document is answered in writing. There is, has, and always will be situations and circumstances come up that require us to decide how to apply written principles to actual "living" circumstances. That is unavoidable. Let's call it "Real Time" application........ and for that, you must either go with your own opinion, or go with the majority, or go with the authority.... there are no easy, written down answers.
Which way do YOU turn?

reply from: godless

Well you have a more colorful way of expressing it, but that's pretty much what I was saying about the Vatican's Swiss Guards. They are paid to do the physical task of "violently" protecting the Vatican and everyone in it, but employing them is the same as being violent yourself, IMO.
Same is true of saying "we have the police to take care of child killers"...... hey, the police are just doing your dirty work, unless you actively advocate letting all child molesters go free....... and I don't see anyone here doing that. So that makes all of us a party to the "violence" of the police.
Hey, I'm down with that, bro.
Hey, if this god could get some people to better represent him/her, maybe more would join the christ dudes. I mean I send off for information to a guy on this forum, and he sends me back some of the best material I have ever seen. Then he sends me an email "turn or burn heathen". Like thats really gonna win me to the jesus movement. Thenyou got these panty waist lay down and die for jesus says so. How long would the country last if everyone did that? I mean I would love to believe in god, but if this all knowing cat can't find better than this, kinda makes you dought his ability to do much of anything.

reply from: JusticeThenMercy

You are not fooling anyone!
Jam 4:13 Go to now, ye that say, To day or to morrow we will go into such a city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain:
Jam 4:14 Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away.
Jam 4:15 For that ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that.
Jam 4:16 But now ye rejoice in your boastings: all such rejoicing is evil.
Jam 4:17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.
Expectation and planning usually go together but we know it is presumptuous to do not rely upon God. Planning is not mutally exclusive to deferring to God's will.
Luke 14:28, "For which one of you, when he wants to build a tower, does not first sit down and calculate the cost to see if he has enough to complete it? 29 "Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who observe it begin to ridicule him, 30 saying,
This man began to build and was not able to finish.' 31 "Or what king, when he sets out to meet another king in battle, will not first sit down and consider whether he is strong enough with ten thousand men to encounter the one coming against him with twenty thousand? 32 "Or else, while the other is still far away, he sends a delegation and asks for terms of peace."

reply from: BiblicalTruth

Originally posted by: Yodavater
No, not the majority position, it's your position I'm asking about.
Now, I don't know if you realize it or not, but there has never been, and never will be a time when every single question about interpretation of scriptures or any other document is answered in writing. There is, has, and always will be situations and circumstances come up that require us to decide how to apply written principles to actual "living" circumstances. That is unavoidable. Let's call it "Real Time" application........ and for that, you must either go with your own opinion, or go with the majority, or go with the authority.... there are no easy, written down answers.
Bible
Creeds
Tradition
Church Teaching
Guiding of the Spirit - This one most relates to situational in the moment decisions but will never contract those things about that we can get our hands on. Ok I just fibbed. There are many churches that you will get contradictory information in but then best bet is to make sure all these topics line up to make sure you are following the truth.
2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
1Th 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
BiblicalTruth

reply from: yoda

Okay, excuse me for going back to a previous post, but there's something here that apparently needs to be cleared up. I know you did give me an answer to my "scenario" ("for the sake of giving me a clear idea of what Christ has called us to"), but still I wonder about the phrase "vain imagination". If the question that is asked is simply a "what would you do IF" kind of question, isn't it prudent to consider any situations that might reasonably be expected to come up?
For example, why would considering the plan in advance for the fire escape route one would take if one's family is attacked be acceptable but considering one's path for an attack of rape or death is a "vain imagination" and wrong to do?

reply from: RobertFerguson

Very true.
Gee, that seems to be exactly what Yoda has asked the Bible Lie Man to do. to count the cost and see if he had it in him. Apparently, he does not. Paul Hill counted the cost and found himself able to continue defending prebon children to the end!
That is also what we are asking when we wish to speak about the same equal defense that is avaliable to the preborn child. Very good job.

reply from: RobertFerguson

why would advanced planning be wrong?
Is it prudent to practice fire escape routes? Even teach your children? Matt Truewella of the well respected Missionaries to the preborn shares how he teaches his children in advance.
"What should we do? We should do what thousands of people across this nation are doing. We should be forming militias...There are plans of resistance being made...Churches can form militia days and teach their men how to fight...This Christmas, I want you to do the most loving thing...buy each of your children an SKS rifle and 500 rounds of ammunition..."
-Reverend Matthew Trewhella, Director, Missionaries to the
Preborn, addressing the Wisconsin Convention of the US Taxpayers Party, May 27-29, 1994.

reply from: BiblicalTruth

This was great. I confessed some sins and prayed and the Lord gave me the Answer. Here is the passage in context.
Luk 14:27 And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.
Luk 14:28 For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it?
Luk 14:29 Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him,
Luk 14:30 Saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish.
Luk 14:31 Or what king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand?
Luk 14:32 Or else, while the other is yet a great way off, he sendeth an ambassage, and desireth conditions of peace.
Luk 14:33 So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.
Luk 14:34 Salt is good: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be seasoned?
Luk 14:35 It is neither fit for the land, nor yet for the dunghill; but men cast it out. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
He is speaking to people before they become Christians telling them to really examine what they are getting involved in. Once we become Christians we rely on him for Day to Day activity.
BiblicalTruth

reply from: BiblicalTruth

Originally posted by: yodavater
Okay, excuse me for going back to a previous post, but there's something here that apparently needs to be cleared up. I know you did give me an answer to my "scenario" ("for the sake of giving me a clear idea of what Christ has called us to"), but still I wonder about the phrase "vain imagination". If the question that is asked is simply a "what would you do IF" kind of question, isn't it prudent to consider any situations that might reasonably be expected to come up?
For example, why would considering the plan in advance for the fire escape route one would take if one's family is attacked be acceptable but considering one's path for an attack of rape or death is a "vain imagination" and wrong to do?
I appreciate kindly formed questions rather than attacks. You have a more Christians spirit than most of the professing "Christians" here.
The point is that Jesus is our guardian and protector. To imagine a situation where you need to come up with a solution is vain as it is confidense in self. It is an imagination obviously because it may or may not happen. Only the Lord knows our paths. I hope this helps.
BiblicalTruth

reply from: BiblicalTruth

Can I get an order of 50 Jesus AK47 Dolls. I rejected Dogma's Buddy Christ but this one....
Joe 2:1 Blow ye the trumpet in Zion, and sound an alarm in my holy mountain: let all the inhabitants of the land tremble: for the day of the LORD cometh, for it is nigh at hand;
Joe 2:2 A day of darkness and of gloominess, a day of clouds and of thick darkness, as the morning spread upon the mountains: a great people and a strong; there hath not been ever the like, neither shall be any more after it, even to the years of many generations.
Joe 2:3 A fire devoureth before them; and behind them a flame burneth: the land is as the garden of Eden before them, and behind them a desolate wilderness; yea, and nothing shall escape them.
Joe 2:4 The appearance of them is as the appearance of horses; and as horsemen, so shall they run.
Joe 2:5 Like the noise of chariots on the tops of mountains shall they leap, like the noise of a flame of fire that devoureth the stubble, as a strong people set in battle array.
Joe 2:6 Before their face the people shall be much pained: all faces shall gather blackness.
Joe 2:7 They shall run like mighty men; they shall climb the wall like men of war; and they shall march every one on his ways, and they shall not break their ranks:
Joe 2:8 Neither shall one thrust another; they shall walk every one in his path: and when they fall upon the sword, they shall not be wounded.
Joe 2:9 They shall run to and fro in the city; they shall run upon the wall, they shall climb up upon the houses; they shall enter in at the windows like a thief.
Joe 2:10 The earth shall quake before them; the heavens shall tremble: the sun and the moon shall be dark, and the stars shall withdraw their shining:
Joe 2:11 And the LORD shall utter his voice before his army: for his camp is very great: for he is strong that executeth his word: for the day of the LORD is great and very terrible; and who can abide it?
Joe 2:12 Therefore also now, saith the LORD, turn ye even to me with all your heart, and with fasting, and with weeping, and with mourning:
Joe 2:13 And rend your heart, and not your garments, and turn unto the LORD your God: for he is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repenteth him of the evil.
Joe 2:14 Who knoweth if he will return and repent, and leave a blessing behind him; even a meat offering and a drink offering unto the LORD your God?
Joe 2:15 Blow the trumpet in Zion, sanctify a fast, call a solemn assembly:
Why can't you just have patience and wait for this.
BiblicalTruth

reply from: yoda

Well, what can I say........but fer sure the dude who sent you the pics is not one of the "panty waists". Hey, we gots all kinds here....

reply from: yoda

Okay, now we're getting down to crunch time........ what to do when the "topics" will not line up?

reply from: BiblicalTruth

Originally posted by: yodavater
Okay, now we're getting down to crunch time........ what to do when the "topics" will not line up?
Eliminate the errant information.
BiblicalTruth

reply from: yoda

Good man. He brings the children of his flock with him when he travels to fight for the preborn, too. They make quite a fine sight!

reply from: yoda

Well I appreciate your consistency in stating your position, even though it is not a popular one here. I give you credit for sincerity and courtesy.
Well, I must disagree with the conclusion that we should not consider possible future events, if for no other reason than because hypothetical situations are the best way to discuss moral opinions, IMO. (Just a note here, I consider that everyone has a "moral opinion" whether they follow a particular religion or not....... in fact I consider the decision to follow a particular religion to be a "moral decision" that each individual makes.)
You might consider them "future planning", or you might consider them to be simply a question about your attitude and values right now, in the present. For example, when we discuss what one might do in case they are attacked by a thief, that is another way of saying "do we have the right to defend ourselves and our property". It's just another way of phrasing the question.
So if you prefer it, I'll ask questions of you only in the present tense, but the implications will be the same, believe me.

reply from: yoda

Eliminate the errant information.
Oh man, surely you know that IS circular reasoning? How can you decide which information is "errant" until you get the topics to line up?

reply from: BiblicalTruth

Originally posted by: BiblicalTruth
Eliminate the errant information.
Originally posted by: yodavater
Oh man, surely you know that IS circular reasoning? How can you decide which information is "errant" until you get the topics to line up?
You ever see Sesame Street? Which on of these things don't belong with the others?
BiblicalTruth

reply from: BiblicalTruth

Originally posted by: yodavater
Well I appreciate your consistency in stating your position, even though it is not a popular one here. I give you credit for sincerity and courtesy.
Originally posted by: yodavater
Well, I must disagree with the conclusion that we should not consider possible future events, if for no other reason than because hypothetical situations are the best way to discuss moral opinions, IMO. (Just a note here, I consider that everyone has a "moral opinion" whether they follow a particular religion or not....... in fact I consider the decision to follow a particular religion to be a "moral decision" that each individual makes.)
You might consider them "future planning", or you might consider them to be simply a question about your attitude and values right now, in the present. For example, when we discuss what one might do in case they are attacked by a thief, that is another way of saying "do we have the right to defend ourselves and our property". It's just another way of phrasing the question.
It seems that your concept of situational questions opens the door to situational (relative) truth which I reject in moral situations. Much like "what about rape" question. I believe in absolute truth. Black and white statements about morality are what the Bible deals with.
Please feel free to frame your questions however you like but I think you fill find the more you trust God the more clear things become and the less you need to invent imaginary situations to understand your current one.
Jam 1:8 A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.
Jam 4:8 Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded.
BiblicalTruth

reply from: JohnGlenn

Deuteronomy 22:23-27 This passage deals with rape. Notice that verse 27 ends with the words "but there was no one to save her." What is the implication of such a statement? The implication is that had someone been around to hear her cry out, they had a moral duty to intervene and protect her from being raped. To stand by would be immoral. We have a God-given right to defend not only ourselves, but also others.
Exodus 22:2 In this verse, God declares that if someone breaks into your house at night and you kill him, you are not guilty of murder. This verse makes clear that you have a God-given right to defend yourself and to defend your family.

reply from: JohnGlenn

Well I appreciate your consistency in stating your position, even though it is not a popular one here. I give you credit for sincerity and courtesy.
How about for courage and logic?
Psalm 144:1 Blessed be the LORD my strength which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight:
Psalms 18:34
34 He teacheth my hands to war, so that a bow of steel is broken by mine arms. KJV
How does One teach or is taught without future planning?
Luke 22:36
36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. KJV
Jesus said to buy a sword, which is planning is it not?
In the chosing of Gideon's army, those who were ultimately chosen were the ones who kept their eyes up as they drank water. Is that not "planning", as it were?
Matthew 5:38-39 In this passage, Jesus is not denigrating the Law of God in regards to one's right to defend himself and others, rather He is repudiating the lex talionis - the law of retaliation, which said, "if someone messes you up today, you go back and mess him up five times worse tomorrow."
No defender of unborn has suggested anything like this have they?
The Pharisees were even using the Law of God to justify this mindset. Jesus is repudiating this personal vengeance which some sought to justify and participate in. He is not saying we cannot defend ourselves or others. If we see someone who needs our help during the commission of an offense, we have a God-given right and duty to intervene.

Exodus 15:3 This verse of Scripture declares the Lord to be a "man of war." That God is not a pacifist is evidenced throughout Scripture.
Even Jesus Himself, who is the brightness of God's glory and the express image of His person, and who has declared all that God is (Hebrews 1:3; John 1:18), drove the moneychangers out of the temple with a whip and overturned their tables (John 2:15).
The book of Revelation defines Him as a King who does what? "Judges and makes war" (Revelation 19:11). The Scripture declares that Jesus Christ is "the same yesterday, today, and forever" (Hebrews 13:8). God's character does not change. God is not a pacifist.
This should prove interesting. Let's see it.

reply from: JohnGlenn

mar·tyr
noun (plural mar·tyrs)
Definition:

1. somebody put to death: somebody who chooses to die rather than deny a strongly held belief, especially a religious belief
2. somebody who makes sacrifices: somebody who makes sacrifices or suffers greatly in order to advance a cause or principle
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861628566
Golly, There was no admission of error from Biblical Untruth even after the dictionary proved him wrong.

reply from: JohnGlenn

The sub-title of this thread is "VIOLENCE MUST NOT BE TOLERATED!"
Why do you say that violence against abortionists must not be tolerated (after three of them have been killed), and yet you say we MUST TOLERATE violence against the 47 million babies that have been killed since 1973 by abortion?
Why "tolerate" killing 47 million, but not 3?
Could you explain that math to me?
Catholic American must not be good at math.
BTW I woder if BT has a lock on his front door? Is that not planning in advance?
Does he lock it when he leaves or goes to bed at night ? If he does, why doesn't he just trust God? Why have a lock at all? Isn't that advanced planning?

reply from: BiblicalTruth

Originally posted by: JohnGlenn
Deuteronomy 22:23-27 This passage deals with rape. Notice that verse 27 ends with the words "but there was no one to save her." What is the implication of such a statement? The implication is that had someone been around to hear her cry out, they had a moral duty to intervene and protect her from being raped. To stand by would be immoral. We have a God-given right to defend not only ourselves, but also others.
Exodus 22:2 In this verse, God declares that if someone breaks into your house at night and you kill him, you are not guilty of murder. This verse makes clear that you have a God-given right to defend yourself and to defend your family.
2Co 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
2Co 3:7 But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:
2Co 3:8 How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?
2Co 3:9 For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.
2Co 3:10 For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.
2Co 3:11 For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.
2Co 3:12 Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech:
2Co 3:13 And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:
2Co 3:14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.
2Co 3:15 But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.
2Co 3:16 Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.
Eph 1:17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:
Eph 1:18 The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,
Heb 10:1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
BiblicalTruth

reply from: JohnGlenn

Originally posted by: JohnGlenn
Deuteronomy 22:23-27 This passage deals with rape. Notice that verse 27 ends with the words "but there was no one to save her." What is the implication of such a statement? The implication is that had someone been around to hear her cry out, they had a moral duty to intervene and protect her from being raped. To stand by would be immoral. We have a God-given right to defend not only ourselves, but also others.
Exodus 22:2 In this verse, God declares that if someone breaks into your house at night and you kill him, you are not guilty of murder. This verse makes clear that you have a God-given right to defend yourself and to defend your family.
Great verses, yet only one reference is needed to tell us that the OT teachings are to be used for our doctrine. It's found in 2Tim 3:16-17 ALL scripture is profitable for doctrine.

reply from: BiblicalTruth

Originally posted by: yodavater
Well I appreciate your consistency in stating your position, even though it is not a popular one here. I give you credit for sincerity and courtesy.
Originally posted by: JohnGlenn
How about for courage and logic?
Originally posted by: BiblicalTruth
The point is that Jesus is our guardian and protector. To imagine a situation where you need to come up with a solution is vain as it is confidense in self. It is an imagination obviously because it may or may not happen. Only the Lord knows our paths. I hope this helps.
Originally posted by: yodavater
Well, I must disagree with the conclusion that we should not consider possible future events, if for no other reason than because hypothetical situations are the best way to discuss moral opinions, IMO. (Just a note here, I consider that everyone has a "moral opinion" whether they follow a particular religion or not....... in fact I consider the decision to follow a particular religion to be a "moral decision" that each individual makes.)
You might consider them "future planning", or you might consider them to be simply a question about your attitude and values right now, in the present. For example, when we discuss what one might do in case they are attacked by a thief, that is another way of saying "do we have the right to defend ourselves and our property". It's just another way of phrasing the question.
Originally posted by: JohnGlenn
Psalm 144:1 Blessed be the LORD my strength which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight:
Psalms 18:34
34 He teacheth my hands to war, so that a bow of steel is broken by mine arms. KJV
When you can break a bow of steel come talk to us.
My Point Exactly! What happened next when they used the sword John? What was Jesus' plan for telling them to bring swords?
Mat 26:52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.
All includes you John
Again this was Jesus planning not Gideon. Remember God undid ALL of Gideon's planning then when they attacked they did not even use any violence except to some pottery. Thanks for another one!
Still in denial eh?
Mat 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
Mat 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
He assumes that you are allowing yourself to be smitten on the cheek. This is being non-resistant.
de·fense
Pronunciation[di-fens or, esp. for 7, 9, dee-fens] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -fensed, -fens·ing.
- noun
1. resistance against attack; protection: Two more regiments are needed for the defense of the city.
Tell me any Abortion doctor that has been killed that is not experiencing some form of vengeance for killing other children. I am sure that this had nothing to do with Paul Hills motivation.
Where is Jesus' command to do this with physical violence.
Exactly. He will do it! That is the Third point you have given me in the post. I will not have to post anymore here soon.
Exactly. He will do it! That is the Fourth point you have given me in the post. I will not have to post anymore here soon.
May I remind you that you are JohnGlenn not Jesus Christ.
BiblicalTruth

reply from: BiblicalTruth

Originally posted by: JohnGlenn
Deuteronomy 22:23-27 This passage deals with rape. Notice that verse 27 ends with the words "but there was no one to save her." What is the implication of such a statement? The implication is that had someone been around to hear her cry out, they had a moral duty to intervene and protect her from being raped. To stand by would be immoral. We have a God-given right to defend not only ourselves, but also others.
Exodus 22:2 In this verse, God declares that if someone breaks into your house at night and you kill him, you are not guilty of murder. This verse makes clear that you have a God-given right to defend yourself and to defend your family.
Originally posted by: BiblicalTruth
2Co 3:6
2Co 3:7
2Co 3:8
2Co 3:9
2Co 3:10
2Co 3:11
2Co 3:12
2Co 3:13
2Co 3:14
2Co 3:15
2Co 3:16
Eph 1:17
Eph 1:18
Heb 10:1
Heb 8:13
Originally posted by: JohnGlenn
Great verses, yet only one reference is needed to tell us that the OT teachings are to be used for our doctrine. It's found in 2Tim 3:16-17 ALL scripture is profitable for doctrine.
Pro 1:5 A wise man will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels:
Pro 9:9 Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be yet wiser: teach a just man, and he will increase in learning.
JohnGlenn you are: 2Ti 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
We DO NOT get doctrine from Old Testament LAW as mentioned by the New Testament. YOUR interpritation does damage to scripture!
As stated already there are plenty of things that we can get doctrine from in the Old Testament but it is not LAW!
Heb 10:1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
Rom 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
Rom 2:23 Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God?
Rom 2:25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.
Rom 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
Rom 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
Rom 7:6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.
Rom 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Jer 17:5 Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD.
Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
Gal 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
Gal 3:11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
Gal 3:19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
Gal 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
BiblicalTruth

reply from: JohnGlenn

And I wonder why you use a proabort and antiGod website to get your information on Robert when Catholic and Christian Websites recount his actions. Do you have an agenda, perhaps a bias one against Robert?

www.losangelesmission.com/ed/articles/2002/0602cz.htm
in the above article entitiled It's a Lighthouse When We're Standing Out ThereRobert is described by the Catholic Magazine as an "effective silent witness" and gives account for his saving a baby from death, yet at the same time calling the church to repentance.
The next Catholic article has Robert a Protestant giving a baby shower for a Catholic woman who was stabbed by the father of her child when she refused to abort. http://www.lacruzdecal.com/ed/articles/2000/0500et.htm The cathooic Magazine uses Robert's example to spur Catholics to action by mocking them with a Protestant who is active in his antiabortion gospel faith along with his Protestant church.
The next article called Evergreen Baptist Bloodguilt Outreach is one where Robert appeals to a Baptist church that is just 166' from a killing center that kills while the church is having services and to three Catholic organizations, a church, a school and a retreat ALL within a few hundreed feet of the killing center- yet do NOTHING.
www.mttu.com/apathetic/Evergreen%20Baptist%20Bloodguilt%20outreach%20update.htm
Yet each of these and other articles on Robert were left out? Why? Did you mean to vilify him to promote your own agenda?

reply from: JohnGlenn

Britton. Do you want another?

reply from: BiblicalTruth

Originally posted by: yodavater
mar·tyr
noun (plural mar·tyrs)
Definition:
1. somebody put to death: somebody who chooses to die rather than deny a strongly held belief, especially a religious belief
2. somebody who makes sacrifices: somebody who makes sacrifices or suffers greatly in order to advance a cause or principle
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861628566
Originally posted by: JohnGlenn
Golly, There was no admission of error from Biblical Untruth even after the dictionary proved him wrong.
Ok Fine. A Christian would not be called a martyr if he is killed for killing someone else. Maybe Paul Hill could be classified a Muslim Martyr though. They kill other people!
BiblicalTruth

reply from: BiblicalTruth

Originally posted by: JohnGlenn
Britton. Do you want another?
Ok well maybe you did not understand the question. Maybe I do not know the situation but based on what you replied with you are telling me that Britton was a DOCTOR that NEVER killed any children in the abortion procedure before he was killed?
BiblicalTruth

reply from: JohnGlenn

Biblical untruth,
Again, lots of nice scripture but NONE that adresses 2 Timothy 3:16-17
ALL SCRIPTURE is given by inspriration of God and is PROFITABLE for doctrine....
What scripture do you claim Timothy is speaking of if not the OT that includes the law?

reply from: JohnGlenn

Originally posted by: JohnGlenn
Golly, There was no admission of error from Biblical Untruth even after the dictionary proved him wrong.
is that your admission of error?
Paul Hill killed in defense of a LIVE person.
Hill was martyered for his faith in Christ that such a defense is scripturally a pat of God's character. You definately have not proven otherwise.
You are deceitful.
Is this really the best arguement you can provide in defenseof your lie about Hill's faithful matryerdom? You may as well stay home.

reply from: BiblicalTruth

The Laws are shadows of things in the future. They are not excluded but not taken at face value!
BiblicalTruth

reply from: JohnGlenn

Originally posted by: JohnGlenn
Britton. Do you want another?
Ok well maybe you did not understand the question.
I understood the question. You asked for an abortionist who was killed not in vengeance for his past killings. I gave you one. Do you want another?
That is surely the truth.
Your error and lack of knowledge is that Britton was not killed for past killings but in defense of imminent killing of 32.
You don't wish to recongnize this just action as it could place an equal burden on you to preform such a defense if called by God. There is a need by you to discredit lethal defensive action so you can live with yourself.

reply from: JohnGlenn


gee, where is THAT in 2 Timothy?
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, but not taken at face value yet is still profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto some but not all good works.
italised word are lies
If not the OT, what scripture is God speaking of?

reply from: BiblicalTruth

Originally posted by: JohnGlenn
gee, where is THAT in 2 Timothy?
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, but not taken at face value yet is still profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Heb 10:1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
I have scripture for the correct understanding of Tim. You have nothing!
Where is your scripture for this? Oh you don't have one. You are just being obnoxious!
Tit 3:10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;
Mat 10:14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.
PS It is God's character to do the things that you are reserving for Paul Hill and others like him. Good luck John!
BiblicalTruth

reply from: JohnGlenn

Originally posted by: JohnGlenn
gee, where is THAT in 2 Timothy?
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, but not taken at face value yet is still profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Again, nice scriptures. But they are NOT IN 2 Timothy are they?
ALL SCRIPTURE is given by inspriration of God and is PROFITABLE for doctrine....
What scripture do you claim Timothy is speaking of if not the OT that includes the law?
It certainly is God's character but I am not reserving it for Paul Hill or others like him.
We are ALL to have God's character.
God used men to defend others with force. Even lethal force.
heck God even used men to administer [execute] His vengeance on others.
"Select men from your midst and arm them for war, to attack the Midianites and execute the LORD'S vengeance on them." Numbers 31:3
Since the NEW Testiment says He is the SAME yesterday, today and forever- it is fair to say He could do the same today.

reply from: RobertFerguson

Of course it's fair to say God could command men to defend preborn with lethal force today.
God does not change, He is the same yesterday, today and forever. He is not a respector of persons. God equally loves the preborn and the born.

reply from: galen

Seems that in the OT ( which seems to be you favourite section) that God was very specific in whom he told to go to war and where and when... can ANYONE tell me when God came down here and told ANY of you to go out and commit murder in His name.?
it took me a while to read all that was posted here and with the exception of Yoda and CP ( who i know are fueding) the rest of the statements here could be posted on a jihadist website with a few phrases and names interchanged. Do any of you listen to yourselves?
i ground my 12 year old when he speaks to others this way... maybe you should all take a time out and then regroup so that we can all get back to the real world and spend our time with real world pursuits( such as changing laws and helping women in crisis and changuing the minds and sould of Drs who preform these 'operations'), and not idle inflammatory threats.
IMPO it seems that the ferver expressed here could be channeled into something more constructive than terrorism...
Mary

reply from: RobertFerguson

Can you show me where God commanded anyone in the OT to commit "Murder" ?
Defensive action is not murder. Nor is war or other justifiable killings. These all use a different word not found in the 6th commandment of Ex.
BTW In the case of Phinehas God rewarded him for his ZEAL. Numbers 25 That seems to imply that even if God did not give a direct command that Phinehas' lethal action was still acceptable to God. Psalm 106:28-31. says that Phinehas is credited with righteousness for executing judgement.
So is a direct command really what God did in the OT as your question claimed and is a specific call really neccessary for right doing and to be in right standing with God, as your question implies or is this all just another one of your paraphrasing of events to suit your own desires?
But let's pretend your question was based on facts in the OT and you were trying to make a comparison to today's actions that killed people.....
there is no longer a Bible that records mordern day events so let's study what scripture DOES say about God and what He might do today. In order to do this- let's take your question and ask:
can you show that God's character has changed or that He can no longer order men to defend others with lethal force?

reply from: JohnGlenn

The fued is singular in direction, is it not. I've only seen CP fueding with Yodavater.
I read that Yoda does not even read CPs posts nor mention him by name. For a more selfless poster who is not concerned with false accusations of a homosexual nature it would seem that Yodavater has taken the high road in not responding to the fued that CP is insistant on having.
I guess false accusations of a homsexual nature is just the way a 'prolife poster' like CP shows his great ability to debate the prolife agenda.

reply from: yoda

Thanks for listing me as an "exception". But I'm not feuding with him, I am ignoring his posts completely, and have done so for many weeks. That's not much of a "feud", is it?

reply from: faithman

number 1, we have shown you several times that the law of the land allows for the lethal deffence of a born child. If the womb child is a person , then they deserve the same consideration. Number 2, We have shown that defence is not murder. You keep slinging terms around that do not fit. To defend inocent life is not murder. Number 3, in the real world, it is a fact that many have either quit or not entered into the abortion industry because they don't want to wear a flack jacket to work, and many clinics have closed because they could not afford insurance to cover the fact that their death chambers are a little flamable, and tend to blow up every once and a while. Number 4, It is also a fact that many of the advocates of defence are very much involved in peaceful activities on a daily basis. Mahy have contacted me and taken me up on my offer for free, and very effctive material that totally shuts the pro-aborts down everytime. Very few of the passifist have done the same. I perfer, advocate, and hope for a peaceful end. But I can not in good conscience condemn those who rightly believe the womb child is a person who deserves the same consideration as a born child. Now if you advocate a non-deffence position across the board then you would be consistant. But I don't see the passifist out protesting police departments, military basis, and the 2nd amendment right for all citizens to defend themselves ,property, and others.

reply from: galen

Actually i do when given the chance defend my position of pacifissm.... i would love to see non violent methods used by the police and an end to captal punishment. Every time i have used my mouth instead of a gun to defend the women at the shelter , or thier children, or my own self I have shown that you can diffuse a situation without using lethal force.
you however, have said that you admire Mr hill? why then are you not out there emulating him?
mary

reply from: galen

Once again when has GOD come down here and TOLD any of you to commit murder?
Mary

reply from: galen

Yoda, may not be much of a feud... but that was the kindest way i could put what happened between 2 people who could probably move mountains if they worked together.
mary

reply from: faithman

Once again no one is advocating murder. Defence is not murder. God has said in His word in Romans 13 that goverment is to be a terror to the evil doer. This form of government is of the people, and for the people. The 2nd amendment places the sword of God's vengance in the hands of we the people. You neede to quit asking questions just because you don't like the answeres. Your questions have been answered. SSSSOOOOO answere mine!!!! Are you advocating that all inocent life should just lay down and become a prey to evil doers? If catholics are such big passifist, shouldn't they demand that the vatican disband the swiss guard? Shouldn't the Pope walk in the open with out security? Shouldn't the womb child enjoy the same level of security that the church allows for it's pope? And if some one kills to protect the Pope, according to your definition, isn't that murder? SSSSOOOO the swiss guard are paid assasins? So it is ok for the pope to be defended, put no body else, and particularly the second class womb child?

reply from: yoda

Sometimes, the best way to get things done is to give everyone elbow room, and let them do their best alone. I see nothing to be gained by the unborn in a spat between their supporters/defenders.

reply from: yoda

That's something I've wondered about in relation to this discussion. Do you sincerely think that our police and military forces would be able to survive without using force at all?

reply from: galen

maybe we wouldn't need a military... or at least a reduced one....other police forces in this world use nonviolent / nonlethal weapons to bring in most prisoners and thier crime rates are also much lower. those countries who still have capital punishment also have the highest crime rates out of all nations third/ 2nd and 1st.
look at iraq, Saudi arabia, and the middle east capital punishment and large rates of crime, look at England and some f its previous colonies auch as Austrailia, no capital punishment and a lower crime rate.
Do I think we will ever get rid of violent offenders completely... probably not. Do I think we can strive to be better than the miscreants? absolutely. i for one will not take up arms.
Mary

reply from: faithman

The difference is not the weapons, but the beief system. any country that adheres to a judao christian foundation are more civilized and peaceful. There are also satistics right here that when the populice arms itself crime goes down. The states with the most restrictive gun laws have the highest crime rate. States that respect the 2nd amendment have lower crime rates.

reply from: yoda

The countries you're talking about are ones in which the general population is not as well armed as ours is in America. Therefore the police are able to make many arrests without the use of firearms, but even in those countries they all have them in reserve, in case they need them. No police force in any country is "unarmed", they just don't carry them where they are visible. And in England, more and more of them are going armed in public, as more and more criminals are using firearms. It's rare to see an unarmed policeman in a major city in England now.
Sure, let's do away with our military. But remember, we took (militarily) most of the western US from Mexico, and we attacked Canada just before the War of 1812, so both of those countries might invade us if we have no military strength at all. What would we do then? Surrender at once?
Really, that's the only option available if you don't have an army........ surrender. And there are some people you don't want to surrender to.
No, despite your impressive record of handling irate husbands, I'm afraid that total pacifism is precisely equal to total surrender. And the only way a pacifist is able to remain passive in our society is because we do have dedicated, trained professional policemen out there using force and violence against the bad guys. If it were not for them using force and violence, we'd all be forced to use it, or surrender to every little neighborhood punk with greed, ambition, and a Saturday night special.
Now if you really want to surrender to them, that's your business.

reply from: faithman

Oh, but you are just an epty headed moron who should get educated, and get feminized.

reply from: galen

no actually i respect and admire yoda... even if we disagree... he is not caustic in his replies and I have yet to hear him blasphemy anyone ( even when they think he has... most of the time i don't agree).
Yoda can truely be called one to look up to on this board.
Mary

reply from: galen

And in response to Yoda....
I will NOT allow any firearms into our shelter in ANY situation.... one getting in is bad enough but to add more to the mix is asking for trouble.
tasers are diffrent as is chemical gass of certain sorts. the police know these requests and any time they have been out to our place these requests have been followed.
As far as the military... i know that for one country to disarm all will have to disarm... even i recognise that this may be a long time in coming... but we can hope for the future. remember people say the same thing about abortion and we certainly do not tolerate it do we?
no one has ever seen me surrender myself or anyone else around me to what is evil in this world. i will continue to fight for the rights of the unborn and thier parents, i will continue to do it peacefully and i will continue to point out idiots where i see them.
mary

reply from: faithman

You most assuridly tolerate the distruction of the womb child, as 3 to 4 thousand will die today. We all tolerate it, other wise it would not go on. Those are simply the facts. You fight for nothing except your "right" to your stupid judgemental opinion that put the focus on evil agression, and make sure that the inocent will be a prey.

reply from: yoda

The intent of using those "non-lethal" weapons is good, but still in all honesty they are "violent", and do involve the use of "force"...... and in some cases deaths have resulted from their use. So they're a long, long way from being "passive". And if some lunatic husband/boyfriend comes into your place armed.... run!
I wish!
You're going to "fight peacefully"? Hmmm........
I'm getting the idea that you divide physical resistance up into just two categories, lethal and non-lethal. Is that about right? Sometimes that works, and at other times that very thin line becomes blurred so much that you forget where it is. I think the guiding principle ought to be "sufficient force" to defend oneself, or some other innocent person/people. That leaves the question of lethality open-ended, but with the intent to use non-lethal force as long as it is "sufficient" for the defensive needs of the moment. IMO, that IS moral.

reply from: galen

yep... non lethal force is justified... going out and shooting someone in the back is not... nor are bobms etc... but i have said this before..
mary

reply from: yoda

Yeah, I agree with that........ face to face is the only way, if it must be done.

reply from: faithman

who said anything about shooting in the back? Head shots are more humane.

reply from: RobertFerguson

Paul Hill shot the baby killer in the face.

reply from: yoda

Yes, and he stayed there until the police arrived, and surrendered, as well.

reply from: faithman

That is why I love the fiber optic pictures. I often tell the pro-aborts, if you are going to kill them, at least look them in the eye. There are numbers out there that say that women considering abortion, see an untra sound, or the fiber optic pictures, are highly likely to have thier babies. By the by RF, how's the poster working for you? Have more cards, but would need help on postage.

reply from: JohnGlenn

For a guy without an agenda, you sure focus on one thing alot.

reply from: FaithWithoutWorksIsDead

Paul Hill shot the baby killer in the face.
Paul Hill also shot the wife and the security guard, neither of whom had ever performed an abortion, or likely ever would. Even if I could justify the murder of Briton, how would we get past these other assaults? Didn't you call them "accomplices?" Do you agree with Clayton Waggner's assessment? Is it OK to kill anyone who is connected in any way to abortion?" How about "Godless heathens" who object to your tactics? Is it OK "in God's eyes" if members of the Army of God kill them? Would God be OK with one of you killing me? A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.
A yes or no will suffice to end this conversation in a way you like.
Sadly just cause you like something doesn't make it correct.
I doubt you would be willing to anwser some of the questions Robert,Yoda,ect have posted with a simpl yes or no.
So why would you ask others to do something you yourself will not?
You know that unless a Yes or No is used your questions will fall short of the mark you are trying to reach.
I am more then disgusted at how devided the "pro-life" community is within itself.

reply from: Banned Member

Not the same person am I 4given? Not the same? Am I not Catholic? Am I not American? Look at the dates on these posts!
11/10/2006

reply from: B0zo

Wow, that was an interesting and frustrating thread.
It would have been easier to reason with a brick wall, than the late Mr. Feguson, may he rest in peace.

reply from: Shenanigans

Oh, Robert wasn't that bad. I knew him over on the Pro-Life Delphi forum. I found him less caustic and a better speller than most of the anti-aborts here. We really only butted heads over the Catholicism.
I miss him.

reply from: B0zo

Why is he on the Army of God site?
Anyway, I found his reasoning for approving of violence to be extremely frustrating.

reply from: Shenanigans

He was a supporter of AOG.
And while he lauded those like Hill he never actually crossed that line of violence. Hypocritical, yes, but then he did do a lot of good work to save teh unborn, mostly really protesting. He used to joke about his size being one of his greatest weapons against the skinnny pro-abort escorts and cops who couldn't lift him.

reply from: B0zo

I wonder if threads with deceased posters should be locked.
This one has two.

reply from: 4given

May they rest in peace. I really wish Yoda was still around..

reply from: Elessar

gee, Thank you Yoda for your kind words. No doubt you will now be attacked. gee, I would hope so since I have worked in conjuction with Life Dynamics over the years.- and Paul Hill was allowed to have two tapes on Life talk about His efforts. do not know if Mark Crutcher gave the same opportunity to James Kopp and other or not. I do know that he invested alot of time when the government tried ot demonise Kopp for defensive actions. It only seems logical that He would support the right to desicuss the same topics as he, himself as offered up fo rdiscussion on LIFE TALK. Did these same passive aggressive prolife posters attack Crutcher too? Now wouldn't that be nice! So far only one has made even a small attempt to answer the question posed.

http://www.armyofgod.com/RobertFerguson.html of the Army of God

Mark Crutcher is the founder of Life Dynamics LIFE TALK was a radio program hoster by Mark Crutcher

reply from: nancyu

gee, Thank you Yoda for your kind words. No doubt you will now be attacked. gee, I would hope so since I have worked in conjuction with Life Dynamics over the years.- and Paul Hill was allowed to have two tapes on Life talk about His efforts. do not know if Mark Crutcher gave the same opportunity to James Kopp and other or not. I do know that he invested alot of time when the government tried ot demonise Kopp for defensive actions. It only seems logical that He would support the right to desicuss the same topics as he, himself as offered up fo rdiscussion on LIFE TALK. Did these same passive aggressive prolife posters attack Crutcher too? Now wouldn't that be nice! So far only one has made even a small attempt to answer the question posed.
http://www.armyofgod.com/RobertFerguson.html---- target=blank>Robert Ferguson of the Army of God
Mark Crutcher is the founder of Life Dynamics LIFE TALK was a radio program hoster by Mark Crutcher
Yeah, and Elessar is "Augustina" so what. If Mark had anything he wanted to hide, I doubt he would be hosting this website.
Gee you're dumb, Augustina.

reply from: faithman

"This [American Civil] war [of 1861-1865] would never have been possible without the sinister influence of the Jesuits. We owe it to popery that we now see our land reddened with the blood of her noblest sons. Though there were great differences of opinion between the South and the North on the question of slavery, neither Jeff Davis [the President of the Confederacy] nor anyone of the leading men of the Confederacy would have dared to attack the North, had they not relied on the promises of the Jesuits, that under the mask of Democracy, the money and arms of the Roman Catholic, even the arms of France, were at their disposal if they would attack us. I pity the priests, the bishops and monks of Rome in the United States, when the people realize that they are, in great part, responsible for the tears and the blood shed in this war. I conceal what I know on that subject from the knowledge of the nation, for if the people knew the whole truth, this war would turn into a religious war, and it would at once take a tenfold more savage and bloody character. It would become merciless as all religious wars are. It would become a war of extermination on both sides. The Protestants of both the North and the South would surely unite to exterminate the priests and the Jesuits, if they could hear what Professor [Samuel B.] Morse [Ed. Note: U.S. inventor of the telegraph] has said to me of the plots made in the very city of Rome [i.e., at the Papacy] to destroy this Republic, and if they could learn how the [Roman Catholic] priests, the nuns, and the monks, which daily land on our shores, under the pretext of preaching their religion, instructing the people in their schools, taking care of the sick in the hospitals, are nothing else but the emissaries of the Pope, of Napoleon, and the other despots of Europe, to undermine our institutions, alienate the hearts of our people from our Constitution, and our laws, destroy our schools, and prepare a reign of anarchy here as they have done in Ireland, in Mexico, in Spain, and wherever there are any people who want to be free." Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865; 16th President of the United States)

reply from: Elessar

gee, Thank you Yoda for your kind words. No doubt you will now be attacked. gee, I would hope so since I have worked in conjuction with Life Dynamics over the years.- and Paul Hill was allowed to have two tapes on Life talk about His efforts. do not know if Mark Crutcher gave the same opportunity to James Kopp and other or not. I do know that he invested alot of time when the government tried ot demonise Kopp for defensive actions. It only seems logical that He would support the right to desicuss the same topics as he, himself as offered up fo rdiscussion on LIFE TALK. Did these same passive aggressive prolife posters attack Crutcher too? Now wouldn't that be nice! So far only one has made even a small attempt to answer the question posed. [L=http://www.armyofgod.com/RobertFerguson.html of the Army of God Mark Crutcher is the founder of Life Dynamics LIFE TALK was a radio program hoster by Mark Crutcher Yeah, and Elessar is "Augustina" so what. If Mark had anything he wanted to hide, I doubt he would be hosting this website. Gee you're dumb, Augustina.

I found this on the dude's weblog, only it looks like he's deleted it now. You're so lame.

reply from: faithman

"This [American Civil] war [of 1861-1865] would never have been possible without the sinister influence of the Jesuits. We owe it to popery that we now see our land reddened with the blood of her noblest sons. Though there were great differences of opinion between the South and the North on the question of slavery, neither Jeff Davis [the President of the Confederacy] nor anyone of the leading men of the Confederacy would have dared to attack the North, had they not relied on the promises of the Jesuits, that under the mask of Democracy, the money and arms of the Roman Catholic, even the arms of France, were at their disposal if they would attack us. I pity the priests, the bishops and monks of Rome in the United States, when the people realize that they are, in great part, responsible for the tears and the blood shed in this war. I conceal what I know on that subject from the knowledge of the nation, for if the people knew the whole truth, this war would turn into a religious war, and it would at once take a tenfold more savage and bloody character. It would become merciless as all religious wars are. It would become a war of extermination on both sides. The Protestants of both the North and the South would surely unite to exterminate the priests and the Jesuits, if they could hear what Professor [Samuel B.] Morse [Ed. Note: U.S. inventor of the telegraph] has said to me of the plots made in the very city of Rome [i.e., at the Papacy] to destroy this Republic, and if they could learn how the [Roman Catholic] priests, the nuns, and the monks, which daily land on our shores, under the pretext of preaching their religion, instructing the people in their schools, taking care of the sick in the hospitals, are nothing else but the emissaries of the Pope, of Napoleon, and the other despots of Europe, to undermine our institutions, alienate the hearts of our people from our Constitution, and our laws, destroy our schools, and prepare a reign of anarchy here as they have done in Ireland, in Mexico, in Spain, and wherever there are any people who want to be free." Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865; 16th President of the United States)


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics