Home - List All Discussions

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities

For there is no authority except what God has established

by: GodsLaw2Live

Romans 13:1-7 says, "The authorities that exist have been established by God."
The Bible is about Government; God's Government, and it's predecessor's, man's governments. God's Law is based on Love God and Love fellow man.
There is no more important concept than government.
Some on this board are advocating going against the authorities. Romans 13:3,4 says, "Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God instituted, and those who do will bring judgment on themselves....(A ruler) is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer."
Paul Hill did bring wrath and punishment upon himself.
Law and order are such important subjects that a person is foolhardy to go against the ordinances. Breaking into a room with a loaded weapon creates chaos and disorder. Living lawfully is so important; for an individual to go against actual or perceived injustices by the government is wrong.

reply from: RobertFerguson

"not even God" says the man who has made the government his god.
Acts 5:29
Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, "We ought to obey God rather than men."

reply from: RobertFerguson

Jesus violated the following laws, according to the interpretations of the Sanhedrin, that day's Supreme Court: hygiene laws, Mark 7; Sabbath laws, Mark 2:23-3:5, Blasphemy laws, Mark 14:64.
His very resurrection, the foundation of our faith broke the Roman law against breaking the Roman seal on His tomb.

reply from: faithman

You leave out the founding documents of this country. WE THE PEOPLE ARE THE GOVERNMENT. Our government places the power of the Romans 13 sword in our hands by the 2nd amendment. Our forfathers rebeled against England, and many sited the same garbage against them that you spew against those who believe they have the morale right and duty to protect the innocent from evil doers. That is our heritage, thatis our right, and that is our duty.

reply from: RobertFerguson

Major Premise: The Christian is obligated to obey God's law when it comes in conflict with man's law.
Minor Premise: God's law demands that we protect the life of the unborn (taken to be those "unjustly sentenced to death," Prv. 24:11).
Conclusion: The Christian is obligated to protect the life of the unborn even if that involves breaking man's law.

reply from: thecatholicamerican

A person does not have to be violent or advocate violence to break a law. Also more importantly, a person or society does not have to break laws to change them other laws or to cause others to change them.

reply from: RobertFerguson

The Case of the Jewish Midwives (Exodus 1:15-21) breaking the laws of the government

reply from: RobertFerguson

The Case of Rahab (Joshua 2:1-6,15):
This is the well known incident of Rahab the harlot protecting the two Hebrew spies in Jericho. When the king of Jericho was informed that the spies were in Jericho staying at the house of Rahab, he sent word to Rahab to give up the men. Rahab refused to do so, hid the men, and lied to protect them. The brief narrative of Joshua leaves many questions unanswered. Why did they go to the house of Rahab the harlot? Did they know beforehand that she was a follower of Yahweh? Was this a prearranged rendezvous or did they go to her place simply by chance (which raises some other questions)?
A little more insight can perhaps be gleaned from Hebrews 11:31: "By faith the harlot Rahab did not perish with those who did not believe, when she had received the spies with peace."
From this notice we can justifiably conclude that Rahab had some knowledge of Yahweh and His purposes for Israel. Since faith is not some feeling, but belief about something, she apparently had some knowledge that she was trusting in.
She would also have known that to give up the spies would have probably cost them their lives. Once again, we have a situation where an individual is asked by the magistrate to do something which would entail violating the command of God.
Rahab chose to obey God rather than man.

reply from: RobertFerguson

right. they do not have to unless it is the only way to defend a preborn child.
Violent or not. There are more important concept than government.

reply from: RobertFerguson

Scripture says to "OBEY GOD RATHER THAN MEN"

reply from: thecatholicamerican

Violence begets violence. Violence is not the answer to the abortion question.
Would you attack a man with a gun who only has a vacuum in his hand to defend himself?

reply from: RobertFerguson

It simply adressed the falsehood of the statement's claim. There is no more important concept than government.
Proverbs says to Rescue those unjustly led to slaughter

reply from: RobertFerguson

The Case of Esther (Esther 5):
Some suggest that Esther's appeal to Ahasuerus in Esther 5 is a case of civil disobedience. It may be, but it has some unusual features. First, no one is commanding Esther to do anything contrary to God's law.
She is faced with Haman's conspiracy against the Jews and realizes that in order to stop it she must gain the aid of the king. Since she had not been granted an audience with the king, she decided to make a bold move.
Under Persian law, no one was allowed to enter the King's presence without an invitation. However, provision was made that if someone wanted to appeal to the king, they could enter his presence unannounced, but if the king refused to recognize them, they would forfeit their life. Esther chose to take this bold move, although the decision was entirely hers.
Esther's situation is not comparable to others, but she gave her faith more important concept than government

reply from: faithman

All of us, not just the militant prolifers who condone violence.
You continue to ignore the self defence laws, and laws that give every citizen the right to use deadly force to protect innocent people. That is on the books. If the pre-born are persons, then then are covered by those laws. Romans 13 says governments are to be terror organizations, as they should be a terror to evil doers. Is abortion evil? Is an abortionist an evil doer? Are WE THE PEOPLE THE GOVERNMENT. If yes, then we the people should be a terror to the abortionist.

reply from: RobertFerguson

Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego (Daniel 3):
In this chapter, we are told that Nebuchadnezzar, the king of the Babylonian Empire, erected an enormous statue -- an idol -- and commanded all in his kingdom "to fall down and worship the gold image." The penalty for failure was to be thrown into a fiery furnace. When the time came for all to worship the image, three young Jews who were being trained for service in the Babylonian bureaucracy refused to worship the image. They were arrested, given a second chance, again refused, were cast into the fiery furnace, and miraculously delivered by God.

reply from: RobertFerguson

Daniel and the Lion's Den (Daniel 6:10-13):
This story is well known to most Christians. Jealous of Daniel's position and favor with the king, a large group of governors and other government officials conspired to have King Darius pass a law which would make it illegal for anyone to petition any god or king other than Darius. Darius signed the law into effect and the jealous bureaucrats set a trap for Daniel. Daniel refused to obey the law and continued to pray according to his daily practice. His jealous enemies caught him and took him before King Darius, who was forced by the law to cast Daniel into a den of lions. God was gracious to Daniel, though, and miraculously shut the mouths of the lions and preserved Daniel.
This again is a clear case of faith being more important concept than government.
. Daniel refused to obey a human law that put him in conflict with God's law. He obeyed God rather than man.

reply from: RobertFerguson

The Magi (Matt. 2:7-8):
When the Magi were searching for the baby Jesus, they inquired of Herod. Herod told them to tell him where the child was when they had found him. After finding the Child, they apparently intended to obey Herod, but were "divinely warned in a dream" not to return to favor. There was something more important concept than government. Obeying God.

reply from: RobertFerguson

John the Baptizer (Mark 6:14-29):
This case is sometimes brought forward by those favoring rescue, but the case is somewhat unique. John was arrested because he had condemned the marriage of Herod Antipas to Herodias, who had been married to his brother Philip. This constituted incest under Mosaic Law (Lev. 18:16). We are also told in Mark 6:20 that apparently Herod knew that John was right.
This case involves freedom of speech. Apparently it was a violation of Herod's desire, and thus the law, to condemn the marriage. John chose to speak the truth and to face the consequences. Hill was always willing to suffer the consequences. Paul Hill was not alowed to offer his truthful defense at trail.

reply from: RobertFerguson

Peter and John (Acts 4:19,20) : Here Peter and John were taken before the Sanhedrin, who attempted to forbid them from preaching the Gospel and teaching about Jesus.
Since Christ had commissioned them to do just that, Peter and John chose to obey God rather than man.
Chritians are commisioned even comanded to rescue those being led to slaughter unjustly, like the preborn child. Paul Hill chose to obey God rather than man.

reply from: RobertFerguson

Psalm 72 says, "Justice shall flower in his days...for he shall rescue the poor man when he cries out and the afflicted when he has no one to help him" (Psalms 72:7,12).
The blood cries out from the ground for justice.

reply from: RobertFerguson

Francis Schaeffer said in the Christian Manifesto that if there is never a case in which a Christian would practice disobedience to government, then the state has become Lord.
Schaeffer said, One either confesses that God is the final authority, or one confesses that Caesar is Lord.
The Bible clearly teaches that there are times when a believer must disobey civil law so that he or she can obey God's higher law.

reply from: godsfriend

more people should break the law by ripping out unborn fetuses and deep frying them

reply from: RobertFerguson

Are you THAT stupid?
The abortionist has a lethal vacume cleaner as his weapon that will kill the preborn child.
Defensive action that is lethal takes into account this factor.
It is just to use up to as much force as the aggressor is using to stop his attacks. Abortion is lethal!

reply from: godsfriend

yep
the dog wants us to murder. let the blood spill!

reply from: RobertFerguson

There has been no proof offered that God sees defense of self or another as murder.

reply from: RobertFerguson

The concept of defensive action is seen in Scripture in a number of areas; Abram used force to rescue his relatives (Gen. 14:14-16)

reply from: RobertFerguson

The concept of defensive action is shown in the Bible when Moses actually used lethal force against an Egyptian who was in the process of abusing a Hebrew slave (Exod. 2:11-12).

reply from: RobertFerguson

Jael, wife of Heber the Kenite, drove a stake through the temple of Sisera's head (Judges 4:17-21).
Only one chapter later, Deborah, who is Judge over Israel, sings "Most blessed of women be Jael...Her hand reached for the tent peg...She struck Sisera, she crushed his head...At her feet he sank, he fell; where he sank, there he fell * dead."

reply from: RobertFerguson

Elijah the prophet of God slew 450 prophets of Baal in defense of a nation (1 Kings 18:40). He was certainly not acting under the authority of God's divinely appointed governors, Ahab and Jezebel. In fact, there is no indication of a special Divine revelation. Rather, it appears that his action was prompted by the singular and divine authority of God's Law (Exod. 22:20).

reply from: RobertFerguson

Sure it is.
"Thou shalt not kill"
The word "kill" (ratsach) in the Sixth Commandment is one of seven Hebrew words in the Old Testament (OT) used to describe the taking of life in one way or another. It is important to define the specific meaning of this word to determine if this Law was actually violated by Griffin, Shannon, Kopp and Hill.
Ratsach appears 47 times in the OT. It is never used in the context of legitimate war, or in the case of self-defense (Exod. 22:2), accidental killing (Deut. 19:5), or in the execution of a person who has forfeited his life by "shedding man's blood" (Gen. 9:6).
It is also not used in the text describing how Moses slayed the Egyptian taskmaster (Exod. 2:12). All of these Scriptures use a different word not found in the Sixth Commandment.
And clearly Scripture supports certain kinds of killing as viscerally regrettable but righteous nevertheless. In fact, there are times in Scripture when God commanded the killing of individuals even outside the context of war (Exod. 21:12-17,29; Lev. 20:1-5; Deut. 17:2-7; 2 Kings 9:6-10).

reply from: faithman

Romans chapter13 verses 1-4
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.
Preamble of Constitution
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
States of America
hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. - Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred. to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. - And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
- John Hancock
New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton
Massachusetts:
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery
Connecticut:
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott
New York:
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris
New Jersey:
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark
Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross
Delaware:
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean
Maryland:
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia:
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton
North Carolina:
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn
South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton
Georgia:
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

reply from: RobertFerguson

The Convention on the Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity
SECTION F : GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW

Article 31(1)(c): self-defense or defense of others
Self-defense or defense of others should apply where the person acts reasonably to defend him or herself or another person from an imminent use of force, in so far as the force employed in defense is reasonable to avoid the harm feared and is proportional to it. A person should not be criminally responsible when he or she acts in self-defense or to defend others from an imminent attack

reply from: Shiprahagain

You submit to gov'ts insofar as they follow God's laws. Do you think ppl should have submitted to Nazi Germany? As for shooting a man who has only a vacuum, he's vacuuming a baby who has nothing at all -- he placed himself in that position.
Robert, your arguments about when kill is and isn't used are interesting. Do you have a source?

reply from: RobertFerguson

Shelley Shannon shot abortionist George Tiller as he was driving away from the facility where he routinely killed. Would she have been on a more consistent biblical footing if she had waited at least until he was returning the next day?
To discuss the issue of "imminent harm" it is helpful to more clearly define how Christians throughout the ages have viewed the concept of imminency. To do that, we will use as comparison a fundamental Christian doctrine, the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.
When Christians discuss the return of the Savior they often refer to the "imminent return." What do they mean by that? A survey of Christians will reveal that for some there is a strong hope that His return will be in the next moment, only days, or perhaps months away. Others understand that it may be years, perhaps even long after they have fallen asleep in death. Yet all of these Christians claim that Christ's return is "imminent."
Imminent then appears to mean something other than immediate with reference to a timetable. Instead, it clearly refers to a certainty. It is certain that Christ will return, and the Christian is to be diligent in responding to that fact. With regard to abortion then, it appears that the issue is not the nearness in time but the certainty that the abortionist does intend to kill again.
Shannon cannot be condemned based upon the proximity in time to which she shot the abortionist.
What was certain, based upon his strong commitment, past behavior, public pronouncements, and significant financial investment, was that George Tiller did intend to kill again.
Shelley Shannon was certain of that fact; certain that there were no other significant remedies available to save lives, and we argue that she cannot be condemned as having acted outside of a threat of imminent harm.

reply from: faithman

Romans chapter13 verses 1-4 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. Preamble of Constitution We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. DECLARATION OF INDEPENDACE When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. - Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world. He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only. He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within. He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands. He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers. He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries. He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance. He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures. He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us: For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States: For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world: For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury: For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences: For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments: For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us. He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation. He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands. He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions. In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred. to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends. We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. - And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor. - John Hancock New Hampshire: Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton Massachusetts: John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry Rhode Island: Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery Connecticut: Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott New York: William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris New Jersey: Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark Pennsylvania: Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross Delaware: Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean Maryland: Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton Virginia: George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton North Carolina: William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn South Carolina: Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton Georgia: Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

reply from: faithman

No it does not. You are just cherry picking again. It says that government is to be a terror to evil doers. If government is not a terror to evil doers it is not legit.
That is the very words of our founding documents. WE the people are the government. The laws already exist that say all citizens have the right to protect life and property. When this government was high jacked by pro-aborts, and sanctioned baby killing, it no longer is the God ordained government of the people is despotic, and we have the duty to throw it off. Read the whole post punk, not just part of it.

reply from: Shiprahagain

I'd just like to point out that no one here has advocated violence or suggested that someone should go out and commit violence -- we are only discussing on what philosophical grounds such an act would or would not be immoral.

reply from: godsfriend

people should go out, and pick a random person and bludgeon them to death!

reply from: RobertFerguson

and the abortionists vacume IS a lethal weapon!!!
I have studied scriptures for years. I had hoped to find that killing in defense of others is wrong. Such could not be done.
I searched every pacfists and passivist there was. Read those who debateed the isseu and studied scripture- all looking for a way to escape obediance if God ever called me to do such a thing. They all fail.
This "God's law2 live" poster is really easy to prove wrong. The reader can see that saying that "There is no more important concept than government. " is just creating another god. he has made the government his god. It is a golden calf fashioned in his own imaginations of what a god should be like.
There are plenty of verses that easily provide proof he is wrong. Great men of God, including God the Man, Himself broke several laws of governments during thir time.
This continues through out history. John Brown,Harriet Tubman, Rev Bonheoffer, Rev Martin Nemoiler who used force to defend Jews form death. Plotting lethal force against Hitler. Great church heroes. History will someday show that Paul Hill and Shelley Shannon are justified along with these others.
Nothing has really changed much- the Israelistes fashioned a god after their own desires too.
Israel and "God's law2 live" both break the first and second commandments- with their golden calf gods. It all humanism, isn't it? They place their own imaginations before God's character and then look fo rscriptures to back up their beliefs.As I said, I went about it the other way around- trying desprto disprove the justness of the use of force.
as to wheretoread more ideas in suport o f an equal and just defense. The
most important place ot look is the Bible. see if there is any place that allowed for defense.
If there is, why did God place it there? Was it done by a man of God? Was there any indication that it was a sin? is there any indication that there was repentance? Not with Moses. In fact the next time we see Moses is is defending the daughters of a foreign King and God honors him with yet another good job in authority there.
Moses is called the Deliverer for good reason! He is a forshadow of Christ. Christ reconginsed that His blood had to be shed for our deliverance. The
Fleeing a goverment that says it is wrong to defend and want to peresecute (prosecute}you is not wrong moses fleed in defense of his own life. Jesus' parents fled from the government as well. So did the Maji.
Cathy Ramey wrote: A Biblical Analysis and Apologetic on the Use of Force to Save Human Life In Defense of Others
John Brockhoeft wrote some great letters from prison, now compiled in a book form. http://www.armyofgod.com/BrockSelect.html
"><br ">http://www.armyofgod.com/BrockSelect.html
<br ">http://....com/...Select.html
and Paul Hill has a good book called Mix My Blood with the Blood of the Unborn
http://www.armyofgod.com/PHillbookIntro.html
"><br ">http://www.armyofgod.com/PHillbookIntro.html
<br ">http://...m/PHi...kIntro.html
James Kopp's sentancing speach was powerful as well. It used ot be on line... don't know where it is now....

reply from: godsfriend

I have studied scriptures for years. I had hoped to find that killing in defense of others is wrong. Such could not be done.
I searched every pacfists and passivist there was. Read those who debateed the isseu and studied scripture- all looking for a way to escape obediance if God ever called me to do such a thing. They all fail.
This "God's law2 live" poster is really easy to prove wrong. The reader can see that saying that "There is no more important concept than government. " is just creating another god. he has made the government his god. It is a golden calf fashioned in his own imaginations of what a god should be like.
There are plenty of verses that easily provide proof he is wrong. Great men of God, including God the Man, Himself broke several laws of governments during thir time.
This continues through out history. John Brown,Harriet Tubman, Rev Bonheoffer, Rev Martin Nemoiler who used force to defend Jews form death. Plotting lethal force against Hitler. Great church heroes. History will someday show that Paul Hill and Shelley Shannon are justified along with these others.
Nothing has really changed much- the Israelistes fashioned a god after their own desires too.
Israel and "God's law2 live" both break the first and second commandments- with their golden calf gods. It all humanism, isn't it? They place their own imaginations before God's character and then look fo rscriptures to back up their beliefs.As I said, I went about it the other way around- trying desprto disprove the justness of the use of force.
as to wheretoread more ideas in suport o f an equal and just defense. The
most important place ot look is the Bible. see if there is any place that allowed for defense.
If there is, why did God place it there? Was it done by a man of God? Was there any indication that it was a sin? is there any indication that there was repentance? Not with Moses. In fact the next time we see Moses is is defending the daughters of a foreign King and God honors him with yet another good job in authority there.
Moses is called the Deliverer for good reason! He is a forshadow of Christ. Christ reconginsed that His blood had to be shed for our deliverance. The
Fleeing a goverment that says it is wrong to defend and want to peresecute (prosecute}you is not wrong moses fleed in defense of his own life. Jesus' parents fled from the government as well. So did the Maji.
Cathy Ramey wrote: A Biblical Analysis and Apologetic on the Use of Force to Save Human Life In Defense of Others
John Brockhoeft wrote some great letters from prison, now compiled in a book form. http://www.armyofgod.com/BrockSelect.html
">http://www.armyofgod.com/BrockSelect.html
and Paul Hill has a good book called Mix My Blood with the Blood of the Unborn
http://www.armyofgod.com/PHillbookIntro.html
">http://www.armyofgod.com/PHillbookIntro.html
James Kopp's sentancing speach was powerful as well. It used ot be on line... don't know where it is now....
wow. you've studied scriptures for years?
wow. you've needed a life for many years

reply from: RobertFerguson

Exactly. It means MURDER
The Biblical word for MURDER is never used in the case of self-defense (Exod. 22:2), in the execution of a person who has forfeited his life by "shedding man's blood" (Gen. 9:6).
It is also not used in the text describing how Moses slayed the Egyptian taskmaster to defend the Israelite slave. (Exod. 2:12).

reply from: RobertFerguson

at lest we are attempting to do so.

reply from: faithman

Romans chapter13 verses 1-4 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. Preamble of Constitution We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. DECLARATION OF INDEPENDACE When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. - Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world. He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only. He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within. He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands. He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers. He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries. He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance. He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures. He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us: For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States: For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world: For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury: For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences: For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments: For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us. He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation. He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands. He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions. In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred. to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends. We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. - And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor. - John Hancock New Hampshire: Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton Massachusetts: John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry Rhode Island: Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery Connecticut: Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott New York: William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris New Jersey: Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark Pennsylvania: Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross Delaware: Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean Maryland: Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton Virginia: George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton North Carolina: William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn South Carolina: Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton Georgia: Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

reply from: Shiprahagain

Thanks for your sources Robert

reply from: RobertFerguson

I have provided many scriptures showing just this. The egyptian task master was under the egyptian law and Moses killed him in defense of the Jew.
Ehud killed the King with a side sword.
God had His Son to die for the the sins of all, many of those sins are lawful under the laws of man. Yet the ONLY way that man could be rescued from DEATH iis by the blood of Jesus.
Do you really need the scripture references for all of these and others again?

reply from: RobertFerguson

Justifiable homocide is the defending of an innocent person. The baby killer is not innocent.

reply from: RobertFerguson

Sure, no problem.
Consider this:
What did Christ say was BETTER to happen to someone who offends these little ones?
Did He say:
a] defend their right to kill little ones?
b] let them live?
c] become part of their murder by having them kill your own children? [which is what the church has doen, by committing 70% of the abotions done by planned murderhood***]
or
d] place a millstone around their necks and throw them into the botom of a sea?
Why would Christ use the word BETTER if He did not mean it?
whosoever shall offend one of these little ones who believe in me, it were better for him that a milestone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea."(Matthew 18:1-6)
***Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States:
Forty-three percent of women obtaining abortions identify themselves as Protestant, and 27% as Catholic
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html#8

reply from: RobertFerguson

2 Timothy 2:15-6
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
The only scripture in the day of Timothy was the OT.

reply from: JusticeThenMercy

Seems you either proved your own position wrong or you will have to change your position on the personhood of the preborn so you can view them as not being murdered...

reply from: faithman

Seems you either proved your own position wrong or you will have to change your position on the personhood of the preborn so you can view them as not being murdered...
or to do some great bodily injury upon any person"
that has been my contention all along. Is abortion a cause of great bodily harm to the womb child? Is a womb child a person? If a person then why do we allow them to be murdered?

reply from: JusticeThenMercy

Did I just read this? ****hold on, let me clear my eyes so I can read it again*****........WOW!!! I can't believe that someone who claims to be intelligent would actually write this.... STUNNED!!!!!!!!!!
On what basis (as if the discerning person would need it) can you even advocate non-violent opposition to baby-murder? Unless you want to qualify this statement, you have proved my view of you to be correct, that you are insincere! Maybe I should retract my benefit-of-the-doubt that you are not stupid. I am still stunned!

reply from: JusticeThenMercy

God commands: Thou shalt not put to death/kill/murder, then demands the killing of innocent children. Am I the only one who finds this to be suspiciously contradictory?
Ah HaaaaaaaaH! You are stupid!!!!!!
God is supreme and has the right to call one to death. When He does so He is not capricious, arbitrary or otherwise unjust (after all, we are all doomed to death are we not?). When God directs a man (uuhem! Paul Hill) to kill, it is by definition just that person should die.

reply from: RobertFerguson

Did I just read this? ****hold on, let me clear my eyes so I can read it again*****........WOW!!! I can't believe that someone who claims to be intelligent would actually write this.... STUNNED!!!!!!!!!!
On what basis (as if the discerning person would need it) can you even advocate non-violent opposition to baby-murder? Unless you want to qualify this statement, you have proved my view of you to be correct, that you are insincere! Maybe I should retract my benefit-of-the-doubt that you are not stupid. I am still stunned!
That IS a remarkably unChristian claim to say "for an individual to go against actual injustices by the government is wrong"!
This poster has made his own golden calf god called goverment and is bowing down and worshipping it.

reply from: faithman

Did I just read this? ****hold on, let me clear my eyes so I can read it again*****........WOW!!! I can't believe that someone who claims to be intelligent would actually write this.... STUNNED!!!!!!!!!!
On what basis (as if the discerning person would need it) can you even advocate non-violent opposition to baby-murder? Unless you want to qualify this statement, you have proved my view of you to be correct, that you are insincere! Maybe I should retract my benefit-of-the-doubt that you are not stupid. I am still stunned!
This is why we are loosing our country. Thank God our founders were not pasifist. Thank God that many a young soldier were not either. May brave men stand, and may this evil be purged from our land.

reply from: faithman

Romans chapter13 verses 1-4 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. Preamble of Constitution We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. DECLARATION OF INDEPENDACE When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. - Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world. He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only. He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within. He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands. He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers. He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries. He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance. He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures. He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us: For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States: For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world: For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury: For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences: For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments: For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us. He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation. He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands. He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions. In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred. to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends. We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. - And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor. - John Hancock New Hampshire: Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton Massachusetts: John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry Rhode Island: Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery Connecticut: Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott New York: William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris New Jersey: Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark Pennsylvania: Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross Delaware: Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean Maryland: Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton Virginia: George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton North Carolina: William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn South Carolina: Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton Georgia: Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

reply from: Zeke

BTW- the apostle Paul wrote the epistle to the Romans while in jail. The govt. of nazi Germany was not right because it was government. The laws that allowed American slavery were not good and right just because they were from the government. some governments (laws) are evil. Good laws should be obeyed, not bad laws.

reply from: faithman

You little christian bigot terrorist you. How dare you believe that a preborn is a person and deserve any consideration at all?

reply from: yoda

Interesting comment. By chance, that happens to be very similar to the defense adopted at Neuremburg by the operators of the death camps. "We were only following orders".... they all said.
Are you happy to be seen to be in that company?

reply from: faithman

Interesting comment. By chance, that happens to be very similar to the defense adopted at Neuremburg by the operators of the death camps. "We were only following orders".... they all said.
Are you happy to be seen to be in that company?
Man yoda!!! You little condemer you!!! Just gotta goose step to them baby killing government agents. You just ain't inlightened enough.

reply from: JohnGlenn

GodsLaw2Live
"There is no more important concept than government."
"for an individual to go against actual or perceived injustices by the government is wrong."
Does the reader see just how foolish these statements are?

reply from: JohnGlenn

Of sheep and goats
For all of us, no matter what it is that occupies us * including obedience to other responsibilities that God has given to us * there is a precaution which ought to be observed in responding to those who have used force to save the life of a child. All of those who we have examined for their use of force (Griffin, Shannon, and Hill) are believers in God.
They hold to the essentials of the faith; that God the Father set forth to redeem mankind through His one and only begotten Son; that Jesus Christ was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit; born of a virgin; that He lived a sinless life and died an atoning death by allowing Himself to be crucified for our sins. He was raised from the dead on the third day, ascended into heaven after having been seen by many family members, apostles, and disciples. And He will return one day to make final judgment upon the living and the dead. His eternal kingdom will have no end, and those who have attained salvation by faith will be with Him forever.
Michael Griffin, Shelley Shannon, and Paul Hill, by virtue of their faith and trust in Jesus Christ, are adopted by the Father and brethren to the Lord. And as such, being members of one eternal family, one Body of which Jesus Christ is the Head, we ought always to consider carefully how we treat the members of our body.
Christians should avoid hasty judgments and condemnation of those who are related to the Lord. Instead, we ought to heed the warning that Jesus Himself laid out for us when He spoke of the judgment of the sheep and goats (Mt. 25:31-46).
Those confirmed into the family were generous and kind, even to the imprisoned. (And it is likely that those who were so confined stirred up every bit as much controversy as have those in our own day who have used force.) The goats on the other hand failed to render kindness and concern in their actions.
But Jesus does more than suggest that Christians are to be active in displaying works of comfort and kindness. He tells us (verse 40) that there is a particular group of people that we are not to neglect. They are those who are brothers to the Lord. The goats are those who betrayed their lack of love for the Lord in their lack of love for His brethren.
Finally then, let us not neglect the opportunity we have for open discussion upon this issue of force. It is an occasion for all of us to delve more deeply into the character of God. Is He just? How does His character trait of justice reveal itself, and how are we to be imitators of it?
And while we search the Scriptures, let us not make hasty judgments against those who may one day be honored by the Lord for loving the lives of yet-to-be-birthed children more than their own.

reply from: faithman

Of sheep and goats
For all of us, no matter what it is that occupies us * including obedience to other responsibilities that God has given to us * there is a precaution which ought to be observed in responding to those who have used force to save the life of a child. All of those who we have examined for their use of force (Griffin, Shannon, and Hill) are believers in God.
They hold to the essentials of the faith; that God the Father set forth to redeem mankind through His one and only begotten Son; that Jesus Christ was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit; born of a virgin; that He lived a sinless life and died an atoning death by allowing Himself to be crucified for our sins. He was raised from the dead on the third day, ascended into heaven after having been seen by many family members, apostles, and disciples. And He will return one day to make final judgment upon the living and the dead. His eternal kingdom will have no end, and those who have attained salvation by faith will be with Him forever.
Michael Griffin, Shelley Shannon, and Paul Hill, by virtue of their faith and trust in Jesus Christ, are adopted by the Father and brethren to the Lord. And as such, being members of one eternal family, one Body of which Jesus Christ is the Head, we ought always to consider carefully how we treat the members of our body.
Christians should avoid hasty judgments and condemnation of those who are related to the Lord. Instead, we ought to heed the warning that Jesus Himself laid out for us when He spoke of the judgment of the sheep and goats (Mt. 25:31-46).
Those confirmed into the family were generous and kind, even to the imprisoned. (And it is likely that those who were so confined stirred up every bit as much controversy as have those in our own day who have used force.) The goats on the other hand failed to render kindness and concern in their actions.
But Jesus does more than suggest that Christians are to be active in displaying works of comfort and kindness. He tells us (verse 40) that there is a particular group of people that we are not to neglect. They are those who are brothers to the Lord. The goats are those who betrayed their lack of love for the Lord in their lack of love for His brethren.
Finally then, let us not neglect the opportunity we have for open discussion upon this issue of force. It is an occasion for all of us to delve more deeply into the character of God. Is He just? How does His character trait of justice reveal itself, and how are we to be imitators of it?
And while we search the Scriptures, let us not make hasty judgments against those who may one day be honored by the Lord for loving the lives of yet-to-be-birthed children more than their own.
Thank you bro. I try to write to the saints in the cross bars hotel as much as I can. I would encourage all pro-lifers to do the same. I would Also encourage writting a card to the families of the brave souls in prison. They have suffered hardships because of the actions their loved ones took.

reply from: GodsLaw2Live

Interesting comment. By chance, that happens to be very similar to the defense adopted at Neuremburg by the operators of the death camps. "We were only following orders".... they all said.
Are you happy to be seen to be in that company?
I would refuse to participate with government by running an abortuary. No, I would not run a death camp. I would not be in their company.
Jesus was subject to the authorities. He paid his taxes, he did not even fight against the Roman government's unrighteous judgment to be executed. He submitted. He is our example, showing the path to eternal life that we must follow.
Satan still retained his position of rulership over the earth. Satan said he had the authority to put Jesus in charge of the earth if Jesus fell down to worship him. God did not remove Satan, even as bad as Lucifer was, immediately from power after his rebellion. He was to remain until replaced by God's Government; a yet future event.
Man's government likewise contains many elements of evil. But for now, God has given men's government authority for 6000 years to perform their work. As commanded: You shall work for six days, and a day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as a day. And as bad as it is, we, like Jesus (our example in whose footsteps we should walk) need to submit.
It is true that God is over Satan and men, and we ought to obey God rather than men if there is a conflict (the government assigns us to be an abortionist for a profession, for example). We can refuse to do what men command and follow God.
We have not been given authority over other people's children. The parent's and men's government has priority in making decisions in regards to the child. The parent's and government have decided that mother's should be able to kill their kids if they want. You have been granted no authority to act in regards to that matter. You do not have a permisssion slip to grab an automatic weapon and gun down the child killers.

reply from: RobertFerguson

Jesus broke many of man's laws.

reply from: RobertFerguson

Christ's resurrection rebelled against and He broke this Roman law placed on the seal of his tomb.
Jesus broke many laws of man.

reply from: RobertFerguson

Gee, that will upset the Catholic American to hear that his first pope was a law breaker.

reply from: JohnGlenn

concerned parent, clear this up fo rus.
What did you do besides pray when your murderous sister killed your niece or nephew to persuade her to stop?

reply from: RobertFerguson

Luther called justification by faith alone (sola fide) "the article upon which the Church stands or falls."
http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/justification.html

reply from: RobertFerguson

"God, being a perfect God, had to give a perfect Law, and the Law was given not to save men, but to measure them. I want you to understand this clearly, because I believe hundreds and thousands stumble at this point. They try to save themselves by trying to keep the Law, but it was never meant for men to save themselves by." D.L. Moody

reply from: RobertFerguson

"Paul clearly teaches that we are justified by faith and not by works (Rom. 1:17). ...James declares, 'Was not Abraham our father justified by works' (2:21). ...James and Paul would be contradictory if there were speaking about the same thing, but there are many indications in the text that they are not. Paul is speaking about justification before God, while James is talking about justification before humans.
This is indicated by the fact that James stressed that we should 'show' (2:18) our faith. It must be something that can be seen by others in 'works' (2:18-20). Further, James acknowledged that Abraham was justified before God by faith, not works, when he said, 'Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousnes' (2:23). When he adds that Abraham was 'justified by works' (v. 21), he is speaking of what Abraham did that could be seen by people, namely offer his son Isaac on the altar (2:21-22).
...Paul is stressing the root of justification (faith); James is stressing the fruit of justification (works). ...works as the proof of faith."
[Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe, When Critics Ask (SP Publications, 1992), p. 528.]

reply from: JohnGlenn

On pondering this claim, several examples from scripture came to mind. (I have chosen examples where the men went against the evil ruling governments).
Elijah:
RULING NATION: Israel. "Ahab the son of Omri became king of Israel ... did evil in the sight of the Lord" (I Kings 16:29-30).
ACTION: Prophesied against the king and queen; challenged 450 prophets of Baal to test; he executed all 450 in Brook Kidron.
RESULT: Persecution; another was anointed as king (Jehu); Jehu kills evil king and queen (Ahab and Jezebel) while still not part of "the government" (though he did have an army).
Gideon:
RULING NATION: Midianites. "So the Lord delivered them into the hand of Midian for seven years" (Judges 6:2).
ACTION: Burned false idol and tore down altar. Went to war with Midianites.
RESULT: Righteousness restored; Israel back in control of her nation again.
Ehud:
RULING NATION: Moab. "So the children of Israel served Eglon king of Moab eighteen years" (Judges 3:13-14).
ACTION: Used knife to assassinate King of Moab. People united and killed 10,000 Moabites.
RESULT: Nation set free.
Suffice it to say the entire book of Judges is essentially God raising up leaders ("deliverers") to overthrow the ruling government - and using war and war tactics to do so. IF Romans 13 is to be interpreted as being against this, then there is an obvious contradiction in the Bible.
Those who would still hold to Romans 13 and make it a maxim that we cannot go against the civil government - as "the LAW has been done away with" or "that is in the Old Testament" must answer the following questions.
If the LAW has been done away with, by what standard will God judge the unrepentant?
Where does the New Testament speak against rape, incest, and bestiality? (There are those who say they are acceptable today based on the N.T. saying nothing about them.)
How do you explain God commanding his servants to do such things in these passages?
Do we have an Old God/New God? Old Book/New Book? How do we decide what parts of the Old Testament to accept and which parts to throw out? Do we have the right to do so? Where do we draw the line?

reply from: faithman

On pondering this claim, several examples from scripture came to mind. (I have chosen examples where the men went against the evil ruling governments).
Elijah:
RULING NATION: Israel. "Ahab the son of Omri became king of Israel ... did evil in the sight of the Lord" (I Kings 16:29-30).
ACTION: Prophesied against the king and queen; challenged 450 prophets of Baal to test; he executed all 450 in Brook Kidron.
RESULT: Persecution; another was anointed as king (Jehu); Jehu kills evil king and queen (Ahab and Jezebel) while still not part of "the government" (though he did have an army).
Gideon:
RULING NATION: Midianites. "So the Lord delivered them into the hand of Midian for seven years" (Judges 6:2).
ACTION: Burned false idol and tore down altar. Went to war with Midianites.
RESULT: Righteousness restored; Israel back in control of her nation again.
Ehud:
RULING NATION: Moab. "So the children of Israel served Eglon king of Moab eighteen years" (Judges 3:13-14).
ACTION: Used knife to assassinate King of Moab. People united and killed 10,000 Moabites.
RESULT: Nation set free.
Suffice it to say the entire book of Judges is essentially God raising up leaders ("deliverers") to overthrow the ruling government - and using war and war tactics to do so. IF Romans 13 is to be interpreted as being against this, then there is an obvious contradiction in the Bible.
Those who would still hold to Romans 13 and make it a maxim that we cannot go against the civil government - as "the LAW has been done away with" or "that is in the Old Testament" must answer the following questions.
If the LAW has been done away with, by what standard will God judge the unrepentant?
Where does the New Testament speak against rape, incest, and bestiality? (There are those who say they are acceptable today based on the N.T. saying nothing about them.)
How do you explain God commanding his servants to do such things in these passages?
Do we have an Old God/New God? Old Book/New Book? How do we decide what parts of the Old Testament to accept and which parts to throw out? Do we have the right to do so? Where do we draw the line?
We don't throw any of it out. we pass it thru the cross. The law stands good, and condemns all who are not in Christ. Those who are in Christ, walk in it's fulfilment. Those who have seen Christ, and believe, have obeyed the 2 comandments Of Jesus. To love God, and to love our neihbor. Now the question is, are the womb children our neighbors, and does our faith demand works of us on their behalf? Or does the book of Jame not aply to them, but is just for the legalist to condemn the grace of God?

reply from: JohnGlenn

The herecy of God'slaw2live " there is no more important concept than government. Living lawfully is so important; for an individual to go against actual or perceived injustices by the government is wrong." has been throughly andcompletely destroyed with scripture.

reply from: GodsLaw2Live

The herecy of God'slaw2live " there is no more important concept than government. Living lawfully is so important; for an individual to go against actual or perceived injustices by the government is wrong." has been throughly andcompletely destroyed with scripture.
Many believe Jesus or the Apostle Paul came to give a big green light to those desiring to break the law.
The Bible is about Government.
Adam set up the governments of man; setting a course for death for all of us. We all have followed man's way, been under man's system, ever since Adam started the governments of man. God says it is not in man to direct his own footsteps; that the way that seems right to us leads to death. Because of Adam, we are suffering the consequences of living under man's governments rather than God's Government.
The Good News (Gospel) is that the Government of God is coming to replace the governments of men. With Jesus in the lead, we will follow the straight and narrow path of life, turning neither to the right or left of the path laid out by Jesus. In straight forward terms, only by following the commands can one avoid death. This takes faith in Jesus' rulership.
As you know, no man has seen or heard God (the Father) at any time; His Son has declared Him. Jesus is the author and finisher of our faith in that he is the literal author of the Bible (as the Word) and leads us in the way we must go (as King). Jesus will administer the Law. He is the King over kings in the Government of God.
To recap, it's what you do that leads to death. It is actions. It starts in the mind with selfish thoughts. The Bible has Laws dealing with relationships. We must all live together forever. That is why the Law says we MUST love God and neighbor. Otherwise, under man's system you see the result. We mistreat each other, hate each other, don't trust each other. The result of failing to Love our neighbor and God is conflict and war. Men shall kill each other until everyone is dead, dead, dead. This is the result of failing to obey the Law (Love God and neighbor).
It is impossible, and I mean impossible, to have life without obeying the Law. You MUST Love your neighbor and God.
To those who say they know Jesus; the Bible says if you aren't keeping the Law you don't know Him. 1 John 2:4 "Whoever says , I know Him but does not keep His commandments is a liar...."
You must walk as Jesus walked (and Jesus did no sin). 1 John 2:6 "...whoever says he abides in Christ (Christ means Messiah, Ruler, King) ought to walk in the same way in which He walked."

reply from: JohnGlenn

The herecy of God'slaw2live " there is no more important concept than government. Living lawfully is so important; for an individual to go against actual or perceived injustices by the government is wrong." has been throughly andcompletely destroyed with scripture.
Many believe Jesus or the Apostle Paul came to give a big green light to those desiring to break the law.
Nice try. There are an abundance of these "law breakers' posted in the beginning of this thread. Even Christ broke man's laws.
D. James Kennedy writes:
"The shocking reality is that Christians could stop abortions today if they wanted to. If four million Christians went tomorrow and stood as a visible presence in front of every abortion clinic in the land, no babies would be killed. ... I feel this approach is Biblically correct. ... I consider Operation Rescue a legitimate front-line force in the pro-life movement."
gee, didn't Operation Rescue Break laws? Yep, I think they did.

reply from: JohnGlenn

Go ahead, just try to defend your claim Here it is:
"for an individual to go against actual or perceived injustices by the government is wrong.

reply from: godless

All this government cares about is green backs. So if you bow to the almighty dollar, you will get along fine. We all do things that the gov says is wrong, as long as we think there is a reasonable chance of not getting caught. Just get on any interstate and see how many are risking getting run over by going the speed limit. The founder dudes rebeled against the brits, and the confed dudes rebeled against the union. We are a nation of rebels. If ever there was a right time to rebel, it is on behalf of the little fetus guys. If I were still a fetus, I would hope there would be someone with the nut sack to stand for my life. This is all we get. So if you can take away the only true possesion form and individual, life, thenyou forfit your right to live. I think even the dusty ole christ dude book says that the only value you can put on life is life itself. If you steal a life, the only thing you have of equal value is your own. true restitution requires you stop breathing, if you made someone else stop breathing. I don't care about vengance, as some have implied. It is about making sure the wiesel don't steal another hen. You can't do anything about the chickens already eaten, but you ain't gonna tame a wiesel, and a round of number 4 puts an end of future hen eating. If America had any real men left, every abortionist would not see another sun down.

reply from: JohnGlenn

it would not take nearly 4 million. If .05th of 1% of church goers alone, went to the abortuary there would not be any room for murderous mothers to enter.
There would not be enough police to escort baby killing mothers, like your sister at the hands of your wicked coersive parents. That woudl get ou off the hook for abandoning your post.
No shortage of lawbreaking pretenders, apparently, though.
If Paul Hill had been allowed a fair trial he might have been found innocent.
Linnehan v. State, 454 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984),
"[D]efendants must have reasonably believed that their action was necessary to avoid an imminent threatened harm, that there are no other adequate means except those which were employed to avoid the threatened harm, and that a direct causal relationship may be reasonably anticipated between the action taken and the avoidance of the harm."
That sounds like Paul Hill's neccessity defense. Paul Hill was refused his counsel as guaranteed in the Constitution.
Hill was not allowed to offer his neccessity defense.

Quoting United States v. Cassidy, 616 F.2d 101, 102 4th Cir. 1979 we find the case law cited by the State relevant to our analysis here, as both the necessity defense and section 776.012 contemplate that a defendant may act to prevent some "harm," even if the defendant's act otherwise would be unlawful. Linnehan, 454 So. 2d at 626; ß 776.012.

We could not have defenders of unborn children free to defend children in imminent harm so the court had to deny Paul a fair trial.
They knew that all baby killers would be killed if they allowed the law to work it['s way to the jury.

reply from: Sigma

Your campaign would be in the right if they won and would be in the wrong if they lost in the minds of many. It would also depend on your perspective, would it not? If you believe in the cause they are in the right, if you do not believe in the cause it is wrong.
Was Roe right for challenging the laws of the State banning abortion or was she wrong?

reply from: yoda

I have a feeling you'll be waiting a long, long time for a justification of that statement....
I wonder what the American revolutionaries of 1776 would have thought about that statement?

reply from: faithman

I have a feeling you'll be waiting a long, long time for a justification of that statement....
I wonder what the American revolutionaries of 1776 would have thought about that statement?
The revolutionaries did face the same kind of statements. There were many in the colonies that wanted to stay with Britain. They used alot of the same statements as the passifist have used on this forum. They would squelch the very freedoms that allows them to post such garbage, and condemn those who would be willing to fight for it.

reply from: faithman

Is abortion murder? What is the punishment for murder? In Texas it is lethal injection. I would not be apposed to lethal injection for the murder of a pre-born child. Would you?

reply from: GodsLaw2Live

I have a feeling you'll be waiting a long, long time for a justification of that statement....
I wonder what the American revolutionaries of 1776 would have thought about that statement?
Jude 8 says that those who will suffer the punishment of eternal fire "reject authority". Jude 9: But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!"
Examples of individuals going against actual or perceived injustices allowed by man's government.
Harper's Ferry, John Brown: John felt it was a horrible injustice to enslave people. He believed that those acting so unjustly by enslaving men and women deserved to die. He tried to start a slave rebellion and took arms against those enslaving negroes. John Brown was executed for his actions.
John Wilkes Booth and his co-conspirators believed Abe Lincoln was as bad or worse than the King of England. Abe was taking away state's rights. Individuals and states rights to decide for themselves was being removed by arms by the Yanks. Who said a guy in Washington had the right to tell them they couldn't have slaves. Some dictator in Washington would not let them live as men and states free to set their own course.
Where does it end when individuals believe they have the authority to make the rules rather than nations.
Are Brown and Booth heros because they were fighting back against the oppressive government? Brown fought against enslavement of negroes; Booth fought for the state's right to rule itself, to dissolve a union with a nation if in the state's best interest.
Or were these men rebels, because they rebelled against proper authority.
You were not given the authority, as individuals, to determine national laws.

reply from: RobertFerguson

Jesus violated the following laws, according to the interpretations of the Sanhedrin, that day's Supreme Court: hygiene laws, Mark 7; Sabbath laws, Mark 2:23-3:5, Blasphemy laws, Mark 14:64.
His very resurrection, the foundation of our faith broke the Roman law against breaking the Roman seal on His tomb.

reply from: RobertFerguson

"The moral law of God does not unequivocally condemn the use of force to stop persons who seek to harm innocent life. The use of violence to protect human life from attack is not intrinsically immoral. Those who take up arms against abortionists cannot be simply condemned, nor are they guilty of murder."
-Statement signed by the late Bishop Austin Vaughan of New York*
* Other signatories to this statement: Julie Loesch Wiley, Vicky DePalma, Bal Dino, Chet Gallagher, Chris Bell, Father Norman Weslin, Mike Schmidiecki, Father John Osterhaut, Chris M. Wight, Elise Rose, Don Treshman, Rev. Ed Martin, Joan Andrews Bell, Monica Migliorino Miller, Edmund Miller, Joseph Foreman, John Cavanaugh-O'Keefe, Terry Sullivan.

reply from: RobertFerguson

Jim Kopp saw 25 babies in imminent danger of death and, being a good man, he saw his duty to defend them. The shot was fired around 10 p.m. and no babies died at the hands of Barnett Slepian on Saturday, October 24, 1998. The life and career of one very prolific serial killer had come to an end.

reply from: RobertFerguson

When officers arrested him; Hill said, "I know one thing, no innocent babies are going to be killed in that clinic today."
Paul Hill said: "If you believe abortion is a lethal force, you should oppose the force and do what you have to stop it. May God help you to protect the unborn as you would want to be protected."
"There are several million people out there, maybe a hundred million, who believe abortion is murder," said the Rev. Michael Bray. "Any of those hundred miillion could be motivated by Hill's martyerdom."
I would certainly be in fear of my life if I were a baby killing abortionist.
"Paul Hill can be killed, but his message will never die." said Drew Heiss, an abortion protester from Milwaukee, Wis. "I think it's legitimate to consider, I wouldn't condemn someone if they were called to do it."
I concure!

reply from: JohnGlenn

The heresy of God'slaw2live " there is no more important concept than government. Living lawfully is so important; for an individual to go against actual or perceived injustices by the government is wrong." has been throughly andcompletely destroyed with scripture.

reply from: GodsLaw2Live

The heresy of God'slaw2live " there is no more important concept than government. Living lawfully is so important; for an individual to go against actual or perceived injustices by the government is wrong." has been throughly andcompletely destroyed with scripture.
Psalm 1 "Blessed is the man...whose delight is in the law of the Lord, and on his law he mediates day and night. He is like a tree planted by streams of water, which yields its fruit in season and whose leaf does not wither. Whatever he does shall prosper...."
Psalm 119:1-10 "Blessed are those whose ways are blameless, who walk according to the law of the Lord. How blessed are those who observe His testimonies, who seek Him with their full heart. They also do no unrightousness; they walk in His ways. You have ordained Your precepts, that we should keep them diligently. Oh that my ways may be established to keep Your statutes! Then I shall not be ashamed when I look upon all Your commandments. I shall give thanks to You with uprighteous of heart, when I learn your righteous judgments. I shall keep your statutes; do not forsake me utterly. How shall a young man keep his way pure? By keeping it according to Your word. With all my heart I have sought You, do not let me wander from Your commandments."
Psalm 119 is 176 verses; it is the longest chapter in the Bible. It is all about the law, which the Psalmist says "is sweeter than honey to my mouth." The Law is life itself. Failing to follow the Way by obeying the Commands administered by Christ takes you off the path of life and unto the path headed towards death. 1 John 3:4 "...sin is the transgression of the law." The wages of sin is death.
For those called out of sin, the Passover sacrifice is applied: Romans 3:25 because of Christ's shed blood, a propitiation for those called out of slavery to sin by faith, "...God PASSED OVER the sins PREVIOUSLY committed."
You will want to notice that Christ paid the penalty for previous sins committed by those who now want to start obeying God and His Administrator Christ. The Passover sacrifice is not meant to void future lawkeeping. Romans 3:31" Yea, rather, we establish the law...."
Without faith, it is impossible to please God. Without faith in Christ's rulership one will continue to engage in sin. People will not want or try to suppress their carnal unlawful behaviors unless they really have faith that living lawfully brings about the only course for life.
In the NT is a chapter on the giants of great faith. It says they achieved great deeds because they had faith and told bold action. Of Abraham, the father of the faithful, God said: Genesis 26:5 "...Abraham obeyed me and kept my requirements, my commands, my decrees and laws."
Today, the lawless have turned the definition of faith into a personal testimony, such as, "O yeah, I have faith in Christ's Sacrifice." Faith is not words. The Bible says faith is exhibited by being a "doer of the Word, not a hearer only." James says "Faith without works is dead....I will show you my faith by my works."

reply from: galen

give unto ceasar what is cesar's give unto God what is God's....
mary


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