Home - List All Discussions

Breaking the Law Does Not Change It!

Laws do not change because extremists use terrorist actions.

by: thecatholicamerican

You can break the law through the use of violence and murder a thousand times and it is NEVER EVER EVER GOING TO CHANGE THE ABORTIONS LAWS OR RID YOU OF ABORTION!
Violence in the pro-life movement will never change anything, not minds, not hearts and most certainly not laws.

reply from: galen

yeah... but the psychopathic zealots will never accept that... violence for them is a way to ... well you know.
Mary

reply from: coco

You guys are so right!!!

reply from: RobertFerguson

Yet breaking the law can make a difference for ONE LIFE AT A TIME.
That's why Moses broke the law of his land and defended a Jew slave with lethal force, killing the Egypitian.
Was Moses a "murderer" in God's book?

reply from: RobertFerguson

You mean violence is a way for them TOO.
And none of you has provided substantial proof that God's character does not include having men use violnce to accomplish His desires. No wonder too. The Bible is full of such examples.
Why was Phinehas rewarded for his zeal in the killing of two people with a speer?

reply from: RobertFerguson

Makes a difference to those saved.
Once upon a time there was a wise man that used to go to the ocean to do his writing. He had a habit of walking along the shore.
One day he was walking along the shore. As he looked down the beach, he saw a human figure moving like a dancer. He smiled to himself to think of someone who would dance to the day. So he began to walk faster to catch up.
As he got closer, he saw that it was a young man and the young man wasn't dancing, but instead he was reaching down to the shore, picking up something and very gently throwing it into the ocean.
As he got closer he called out, "Good morning! What are you doing?"
The young man paused, looked up and replied, "Throwing starfish into the ocean."
"I guess I should have asked, why are you throwing starfish into the ocean?"
"The sun is up, and the tide is going out. If I don't throw them in, they'll die."
"But, young man, don't you realize that there are miles and miles of beach, and starfish all along it? You can't possibly make a difference!"
The young man listened politely. Then bent down, picked up another starfish and threw it into the sea, past the breaking waves and said, "It made a difference for that one."

reply from: yoda

In which post have you seen anyone claim that "violence" will do either of those things? Whose "claim" are you refuting? Or is that a strawman?
So are you prepared to violently stop the violence? Is that why you said "VIOLENCE MUST NOT BE TOLERATED"?

reply from: RobertFerguson

In which post have you seen anyone claim that "violence" will do either of those things? Whose "claim" are you refuting? Or is that a strawman?
It's a straw man. Of course.
Just like his other claim that I claim violnce is the "only" way one should defend preborn children.
And his most ludacris claim that we 'should not fight against unjustice'.

reply from: yoda

Let's assume for a moment that you're right....... that anyone who sympathizes with those who have used force in defending the unborn are all "psychopathic zealots", does that mean that abortionists are also "psychopathic zealots"?
Or is killing babies less "psychopathic" and "zealous" than killing the ones who kill the babies? In other words, is it more "psychopathic" to kill an innocent baby, or a guilty baby-killer?
Which is more "psychopathic" in your opinion?

reply from: yoda

It's ironic that those who are sounding the alarm against the use of force seem to resort so much to hyperbole and exaggeration, almost as if the cannot find any rational criticisms to make. They make these wild charges against their perception of what certain posters stand for, rather than what they have actually said.
It's as if these people were not entitled to be judged for their actual words, but rather by what these alarmists think they stand for.
That's not accurate, it's not fair, and IMO it's not American. And I think it shows a certain inclination to be influenced by proabort propaganda about the use of force to defend babies.

reply from: RobertFerguson

of course you can not prove this.
There is no reference to repentance. Forgiveness from God is ONLY obtained through repentance. Moses of course did not need ot repent of anything regardingthe killing of the unjust aggressor because it was not a sin.
Scripture is clear that Moses was a man of Great faith. He is listed in Hebrews hall of fame/faith for such. MOses applied his great faith inGod when he killed the unjust task master in defense of the Jew.
Stephen mentions Moses in his speach before his matyerdom.
Moses is refered to as the Deliverer. Moses went on to be used by God in this way without mention of repentance.
God does not honor "murderers" with such a high honor as being the deliverer or listing in the hall of faith.
Is Phinehas a "murderer"?

reply from: RobertFerguson

It's ironic that those who are sounding the alarm against the use of force seem to resort so much to hyperbole and exaggeration, almost as if the cannot find any rational criticisms to make. They make these wild charges against their perception of what certain posters stand for, rather than what they have actually said.
It's as if these people were not entitled to be judged for their actual words, but rather by what these alarmists think they stand for.
That's not accurate, it's not fair, and IMO it's not American. And I think it shows a certain inclination to be influenced by proabort propaganda about the use of force to defend babies.
Not Amercian? Catholic American seems to think it is fair.

reply from: thecatholicamerican

VIOLENCE IS NOT ANYWHERE ON A LIST OF REASONABLE OR SANE WAYS TO RID THE WORLD OF ABORTION!
VIOLENCE MAKES ILLIGITIMATE ANY OTHER METHODS YOU MAY EMPLOY!
ABORTION IS CURRENTLY LEGAL. THAT IS, AT THIS TIME, A TRUTH. WHATEVER CHANGE WOULD BE ENACTED MUST BE MADE IN LIGHT OF THAT CURRENT TRUTH.
THE DISREGARD OF LAW AND THE USE OF VIOLENCE AND TERRORISM DOES NOT CHANGE LAW.

reply from: yoda

I note your use of all caps, is that supposed to let us know that you're "shouting" at us? My, that's a rather "violent" way of expressing yourself, don't you think?
"VIOLENCE IS NOT ANYWHERE ON A LIST OF REASONABLE OR SANE WAYS"........ So, now YOU are the keeper of "the list of reasonable or sane ways"?

reply from: coco

Makes a difference to those saved.
Once upon a time there was a wise man that used to go to the ocean to do his writing. He had a habit of walking along the shore.
One day he was walking along the shore. As he looked down the beach, he saw a human figure moving like a dancer. He smiled to himself to think of someone who would dance to the day. So he began to walk faster to catch up.
As he got closer, he saw that it was a young man and the young man wasn't dancing, but instead he was reaching down to the shore, picking up something and very gently throwing it into the ocean.
As he got closer he called out, "Good morning! What are you doing?"
The young man paused, looked up and replied, "Throwing starfish into the ocean."
"I guess I should have asked, why are you throwing starfish into the ocean?"
"The sun is up, and the tide is going out. If I don't throw them in, they'll die."
"But, young man, don't you realize that there are miles and miles of beach, and starfish all along it? You can't possibly make a difference!"
The young man listened politely. Then bent down, picked up another starfish and threw it into the sea, past the breaking waves and said, "It made a difference for that one."
LETS KILL EVERYONE!!!! LETS STOP ABORTIONS BY KILLING EVERYONE!!!!

reply from: RobertFerguson

My my, I note that you are loosing your cool, yelling with all CAPS for an entire post. Are you unable to have self control?

reply from: RobertFerguson

You proved no such thing.
What are you talking about? God makes it quite clear that Moses is not a "murderer" as He used a completely different word to describe Moses defensive action.that what He used in the 6th commandment.
"IF" the Bible is true?
You have an antiChrist, anti God, antiBible agenda don't you?!

reply from: RobertFerguson

Certainly, you are not claiming that that statement is what anyone here has said to do. Certainly not myself, Justice before Mercy, John Glenn, Yoda or FM. Are you projecting your own irrational interpretation?

reply from: thecatholicamerican

Name a law that was ever changed because vigilantes took justice into their own hands and thus comitted violence.
Name even one!

reply from: yoda

Name a poster who has claimed on this forum that taking justice into their own hands would change a law.
Name even one!

reply from: Shiprahagain

The Constituion was born that way..

reply from: yoda

Hadn't thought of that........ you're right.

reply from: coco

Certainly, you are not claiming that that statement is what anyone here has said to do. Certainly not myself, Justice before Mercy, John Glenn, Yoda or FM. Are you projecting your own irrational interpretation?
YES AND ITS CALLED SARCASIM!!

reply from: yoda

And that "sarcasm" is intended to convey exactly what........................????

reply from: coco

Certainly, you are not claiming that that statement is what anyone here has said to do. Certainly not myself, Justice before Mercy, John Glenn, Yoda or FM. Are you projecting your own irrational interpretation?
The above statement says it ALL I dont condone the killing of ANYONE!!

reply from: yoda

Okay............. neither do I ......... so we're on the same page there. Has anyone accused you of condoning killing? Are you currently under investigation in any killings? If not, what is the reason for all the shrill denials? Are you afraid that you'll be associated with "killers", or what?
Something else I don't do is question the motives and/or morality of other prolifers who see things differently than I do.... or question their sanity. I think it's wrong to sit in judgment of people whose consciences lead them in a different direction than I, while still having the same goal of reducing abortions.
Many people on "the other side" scream that we must not "judge" the women who kill their babies, and yet some of us are all too quick to "judge" antiabortionists who kill the killers of those babies. If we give aborting women the benefit of the doubt, why not those who seek to protect babies by force?

reply from: coco

Certainly, you are not claiming that that statement is what anyone here has said to do. Certainly not myself, Justice before Mercy, John Glenn, Yoda or FM. Are you projecting your own irrational interpretation?

reply from: yoda

That's Robert's reply to you....... aren't you going to respond to him?

reply from: coco

Certainly, you are not claiming that that statement is what anyone here has said to do. Certainly not myself, Justice before Mercy, John Glenn, Yoda or FM. Are you projecting your own irrational interpretation?
YES AND ITS CALLED SARCASIM!!
Thats my reply to him!!!

reply from: coco

Something else I don't do is question the motives and/or morality of other prolifers who see things differently than I do.... or question their sanity. I think it's wrong to sit in judgment of people whose consciences lead them in a different direction than I, while still having the same goal of reducing abortions.
Thats funny because you ALWAYS seem to question mine!!

reply from: JohnGlenn

Forceful defensive action is meant to be an attempt to save the life of the innocent targeted by the unjust.
I do not think anyone has stated that defensive violence would change any laws or even that such political ambition is the goal of defending the innocent with force.
Forceful defense is a completely different front on the war against unjust killings that politics is not adressing.

reply from: JohnGlenn

That sounds like an accurate conclusion.

reply from: JohnGlenn

Non-combatants? Baby killers?
There is definately an armed strife against the unborn by baby killers.
Baby killers are an enemy of God and any decent moral person.
And you're trying to claim that baby killers are non combatant enemies of the unborn? What world do you live in?

reply from: JohnGlenn

Certainly, you are not claiming that that statement is what anyone here has said to do. Certainly not myself, Justice before Mercy, John Glenn, Yoda or FM. Are you projecting your own irrational interpretation?
Yes, Robert, It seems she thinks posting with CAPS, by making false immplications and being irrational, that she makes others look foolish.

reply from: JohnGlenn

in deed, with you being near the top of that list

reply from: yoda

What, your sanity? No, I'm sure you're probably sane....
I do question your statements at times, and when I do I always quote them so you can see what I'm talking about. You, on the other hand, make general accusations about what I "always seem to do", without ever quoting me so I can respond intelligently.
Do you find it more fun to make general criticisms of people rather than specific ones?

reply from: galen

Yoda,
i my book both the abortionists and the zealots are psychopaths... they have no conscience for what they do or to whom they do it.
Mary

reply from: coco

What, your sanity? No, I'm sure you're probably sane....
I do question your statements at times, and when I do I always quote them so you can see what I'm talking about. You, on the other hand, make general accusations about what I "always seem to do", without ever quoting me so I can respond intelligently.
Do you find it more fun to make general criticisms of people rather than specific ones?
I dont have time but one day I will!! And I would like to know what you are talking about "general criticisims"??

reply from: coco

Exactly who has said that we must not tolerate violence against abortionists, but "must tolerate their violence against the babies that they kill? Please quote any such statement for us. By all means, Yoda, continue to self righteously "point out the hypocrisy" you perceive from others on this forum.
I just thought this statement made by Yoda on another thread in response to, and seeming agreement with, an implied insult Faithman directed at me, and which I ignored at the time, would fit nicely with my other responses on this thread.

reply from: yoda

Well, the "zealots" do confine their use of force to those engaged in baby killing, so they are not "random" killers.... and of course, babykillers kill ONLY babies....... they haven't the courage to kill anyone old enough to defend themselves.
Whether or not anyone is a psychopath is really immaterial, though, to the obligation we have to the babies. I just think we need to focus on our obligation to the babies, and let the abortionists take care of themselves.... we have no obligation to ensure their safety, and no duty to condemn anyone who attacks them. We are responsible only for our own actions.

reply from: yoda

You just quoted one in the very same post! You said "Thats funny because you ALWAYS seem to question mine!!"
That's a "general" statement because you aren't quoting any specific thing I've said...... understand?

reply from: yoda

Actually it appeared as a subtitle to the thread title "Who is Robert Ferguson", which said "VIOLENCE MUST NOT BE TOLERATED"....... did you read that thread? The implication is that we "must tolerate" violence against babies, by "not tolerating" violence against abortionists. In other words, the implication is that we must protect the abortionists so that they can go on killing babies. Do you agree with that "policy"?
Hey, I'll do my best........ and you do yours too, okay?

reply from: galen

yoda,
i agree with most of that sentiment except....
I do not agree with inciting violence. i think that those who incite violence against an abortionist are no better than those who feel that killing a child is a "right' they have a duty to uphold. I feel our world is becoming far to focused on MAKING people do the 'right' things ( whatever they deem is right), and they forget to look at the message they send in the way they accomplish thier aims.
I fear that when we take the step to create a reason why someone is worthy of killing ( like why abortion is OK), then we are setting ourselves up to fall into a society where empathy and morality are things of the past.
i already see this in my children's classmates, where the might makes right rule seems to be firmly ingrained into thier thinking. its sad to try and raise children in a society where they are constatly being told that they can rationalise every whim to make bad decisions Ok. I find that when we condone things like abortion and murder they just reinforce bad thinking.
Mary

reply from: yoda

I don't either, and you won't find that in my post. Some who read my posts may think that it's "between the lines", but that isn't being fair to me. I say what I mean, and I mean what I say.
What you will find is my opinion that we ought to give those who use force at least the same "benefit of the doubt" that we give to the women who hire someone to kill their babies. If there are reasons to sympathize with those women (without endorsing their actions, of course), then there are also reasons to sympathize with those who use force against abortionists, without endorsing their actions, of course.
I think we would all be sympathetic to someone whose born child had been killed by a sexual pervert, right? And if that person killed that pervert I think we would still have sympathy for them. And most especially if that pervert was thought to be about to kill another child.
So let's just keep an open mind about this subject, and not be panicked into frantic, blanket condemnations of anyone who ever got angry enough about babykilling that they actually went out and did something physical about it. Why aren't all of us that angry? After all, do you see the proaborts scrambling desperately to disown abortionists, who have killed 47 million innocent babies since 1973, for selfish profit? No way!! They hold them up as "heroes"!

reply from: coco

and I thought I was the only one that thought yoda was condoning violence!!

reply from: faithman

He is not condoning anything. He has merely sugested that thoughtful consideration should be given to folk before blanquet condemnation doled out. It is this continuos slander of pro-defence by the passifist that pushes him more towards the pro-defence side of the issue. It is just simple logic, that if it is justified to defend born children with force, then there is a pretty good case to defend the womb child in the same way. Unless of course, you agree with planned parenthood that a womb child is not a person, and deserves no consideration. You simply can not have it both ways. You can not call abortion murder, then say we can not treat it as such. It is inconsistant, and weakens the true pro-life stance. You can not agree with your enemy and exspect to defeat them.

reply from: yoda

You won't get any rational, logical rebuttal for that from the "hysterical pacifists", Rick. All they want to do is make nasty personal attacks and invent things to criticize you for, that you never said.
Seems they are doing the work of the proaborts now in making all the personal smears.

reply from: faithman

You won't get any rational, logical rebuttal for that from the "hysterical pacifists", Rick. All they want to do is make nasty personal attacks and invent things to criticize you for, that you never said.
Seems they are doing the work of the proaborts now in making all the personal smears.
Seems like you once accused me of the same. snicker snicker.

reply from: RobertFerguson

The Constituion was born that way..
Let's not confuse Catholic American any more than he is...

reply from: galen

I am not a hysterical pacifist... I just do not believe that killing anyone is the answer to any of it.
Yoda, i would think that by now you would know that i can empathise with anyone...even a murderer...
glad you cleared up where you stand though...
mary

reply from: JohnGlenn

gee, I am not sure he named you as the hysterical pacifist.
Might he be speaking of someone who used ALL CAPS or one who has made an implied accusation that these two prolife posters are homsexuals or even to the one who is being replied to by FM?
That seems more likely to apply to the words Yodavater used when he said:" All they want to do is make nasty personal attacks and invent things to criticize you for"
But hey- if that sounds like you... who am I to argue with your own accessment and ability to see yourself and heart in Yodavater's words even if he did not mean you.

reply from: RobertFerguson

yet my question was when is one worthy of DEFENDING equally?
http://www.prolifeamerica.com/fusetalk/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=7&threadid=2277&enterthread=y

and you never returned when I answered your question. Why is that?
Do you discriminate against the equal defense of the preborn child to that of a born child? Or do you prefer live baby killers to live babies?

reply from: galen

Oh I do not DEFEND thier actions.... I just do not condone nor incite nor do i accept the people who do. I will never defend ANYONE who murders.
Mary

reply from: galen

Dear JG.... that comment was meant for Yoda and i do think HE knew what i meant.
mary

reply from: RobertFerguson

If it would be justifiable to assassinate a mass-murderer like Pol Pot. Stalin or Hitler, why not an abortionist?

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

If you are arrested for pro-life activity at an abortion clinic, this is what your attorney must do:
First, in pretrial discovery, your attorney must petition the court to subpoena the abortion clinic for the names, addresses and phone numbers of all the clinic staff "working" at the abortion clinic on the day of the arrest[s], so their (1)depositions can be taken.
Second, your attorney must also petition the court to subpoena the list of names, addresses and phone numbers of all the "patients" that were at the abortion clinic on the day of the arrest[s], so they can be questioned as potential (2)witnesses.
When the abortion people refuse the court subpoenas, you then move for dismissal of all charges.
Your next step should be filing a lawsuit naming the abortion clinic, and more importantly, the arresting police officier[s] and the municipality they work for, suing them for HUGE MONETARY (3)DAMAGES for causing you (4)PAIN AND SUFFERING and great (5)MENTAL ANGUISH.
--Jim Rudd Editor
covenantnews.com

(1) http://dictionary.law.com/definition2.asp?selected=495&bold=
(2) http://dictionary.law.com/definition2.asp?selected=530&bold=witnesses||
(3) http://dictionary.law.com/definition2.asp?selected=423&bold=
(4) http://dictionary.law.com/definition2.asp?selected=1433&bold=||||
(5) http://dictionary.law.com/definition2.asp?selected=1239&bold=

reply from: RobertFerguson

"Thou shalt not kill?"
Would you let a man who broke into your house rape, torture and murder your wife because you believe in "Thou shalt not kill?"
If you were on the plane that was being used to plane bomb the World Trade Center, you would just let the muslims do it, because to stop them, would
be violating God's laws.
Should we have allowed the Nazis to kept putting Jews in ovens,
because to stop them, we would be violating God's laws of
Thou shalt not kill?
When you read about David putting a stone into Goliath's forehead,
or when Jael put a stake into Sisera's forehead, or read Chapter 11
of Hebrews were most everyone listed there took human lives to
protect the innocent, do you believe they were in error and violated
Gods' law of "Thou shalt not kill.?"
Helpless babies deserve to be protected in the same manner you
would want to be protected if someone broke into your home and
was about to rip off your wife's arms and legs.
To turn our back on babies as they are being murdered, saying they should have to die, because to protect them from being murdered is against God law is what is in violation of God's law.
You think it would have been better if the babykilling abortionist had murder those 32 helpless babies Paul Hill saved.
Helpless babies need to be protected from people like you. People who think it is ok to murder them.
Would you feel the same way if that abortionist was
about to murder 32 children in a school room and Paul Hill saved
them? Or if the abortionist was about to murder your children, and Paul Hill saved them.

reply from: yoda

I know.
All I can think of are the words of Rodney King..... "Can't we all just get along?"
Apparently not.

reply from: galen

hmmmm RK haven't heard that one in a while.
Mary

reply from: galen

BTW for those new to this board... i work in a women's shelter and have talked down more hopped up violent ex husbands than i care to recall... i have had a knife held to my throat and a gun to a 2 day old infant's head. i have NEVER had to use anything other than my mouth to defuse any of these situations. I was raped, my oldest son is a product of that... i did not go out and kill my attacker... he eventually killed himself. So you see i do have a basis for my stance that killing is not a justifiable response to this problem, just as it is not a justifiable response to a problem pregnancy.
Mary

reply from: faithman

so we al should just lay down and be a victim because you have?

reply from: JohnGlenn

I know.
All I can think of are the words of Rodney King..... "Can't we all just get along?"
Apparently not.
Some empathy we should never 'get along' with- like empathy for the baby killer.

reply from: JohnGlenn

gee, the US Marines could have used you in WW2- You make it sound as though a simply sit down talk could have stopped the need for the Bomb.

reply from: JohnGlenn

You had best give this resume' to the President, you know, he is looking for a resolution in Iraq

reply from: yoda

I admire your courage, but all I can say is "don't push your luck". We want you to continue to help those women.

reply from: galen

LOL!!! JG I have no use for this particular president... and actually voted for him 2nd time round.
FM-i also do not consider myself a victim.
Even Einstein had no use for our particular weapon. Maybe we could have saved millions of lives if we could all just sit down and talk.
Mary

reply from: coco

You had best give this resume' to the President, you know, he is looking for a resolution in Iraq

JohnGlenn
Executive Member
Posts: 313
Joined: 11/13/2006
Originally posted by: galen
BTW for those new to this board... i work in a women's shelter and have talked down more hopped up violent ex husbands than i care to recall... i have had a knife held to my throat and a gun to a 2 day old infant's head. i have NEVER had to use anything other than my mouth to defuse any of these situations. I was raped, my oldest son is a product of that... i did not go out and kill my attacker... he eventually killed himself. So you see i do have a basis for my stance that killing is not a justifiable response to this problem, just as it is not a justifiable response to a problem pregnancy.
Mary
gee, the US Marines could have used you in WW2- You make it sound as though a simply sit down talk could have stopped the need for the Bomb.
WOW JOHN YOU ARE SO IGNORANT TO MOCK WHAT SOMEONES LIFE EXPE
JohnGlenn
Executive Member
Posts: 313
Joined: 11/13/2006
Originally posted by: galen
BTW for those new to this board... i work in a women's shelter and have talked down more hopped up violent ex husbands than i care to recall... i have had a knife held to my throat and a gun to a 2 day old infant's head. i have NEVER had to use anything other than my mouth to defuse any of these situations. I was raped, my oldest son is a product of that... i did not go out and kill my attacker... he eventually killed himself. So you see i do have a basis for my stance that killing is not a justifiable response to this problem, just as it is not a justifiable response to a problem pregnancy.
Mary
gee, the US Marines could have used you in WW2- You make it sound as though a simply sit down talk could have stopped the need for the Bomb. |
WOW JOHN THESE STATEMENTS ARE SO IGNORANT, WHO ARE YOU TO RIDICULE SOMEONES LIFE EXPERIENCES??

reply from: faithman

Chamberlain tried that, and almost lost england to hitler. You need to go talk to a WW2 vet. They figured it would cost a million american lives to invade japan. Kamacazi attacks were evidence that japan intended to fight to the last man. The bomb atually saved millions of lives. I am also glad America got it first, as russia was not far behind, and would have plunged the world into totalitarian communism if we had not been there to stop it. If you want to live in your fairy tell world, you need to honor those who stand on the wall and make it possible. But you would have us all a prey to evil agressors. Evil does not stop until it is made to.

reply from: galen

HMMMM... wonder what Christ the ultimate pacifist would say to that...?
I have spoken to vets... Both of my parents were military and my Dad stayed in untill after the gulf War ended....All of my grandparents were ex military... i know what they went through and why the wars started.. that does not mean that they were necessary or that they could have been resolved some other way in the beginning. Hitler Stalin Etc were all evil men who had they been taken seriously in the beginning, could have been dealt with without the world losing millions. no life spared is regrettable ... only the useless slaughter of our nation's rescources is regrettable.
Abortion is the useless slaughter of our nations rescources.
mary

reply from: JohnGlenn

So you vote for someone with HIS track record on funding baby slaughter? Shame on you. His first presidency should have taught you that he is not prolife.
BTW your sidetracking efforts are not fooling anyone. You have shown no reason to believe that talking is going to solve this war in Iraq.

reply from: JohnGlenn

I admire your courage, but all I can say is "don't push your luck". We want you to continue to help those women.
True. When people know you're a push over they will take advantage. Talking just does not work every time. Abortion is the prime example of this fact. Lots of talk goes on before the mothers make it inside the killing chambers. Sometimes a man has just got to do what a man has got to do.

reply from: JohnGlenn

I'd be the one to show that her life experiences do not mean they can be applied to every circumstance.
In this case, the one with the Iraqi war.
But also the case of those 32 the day Paul Hill stopped their killing inside that abortion chamber. Sometimes talk is just not enough.

reply from: yoda

Communication can be a wonderful thing sometimes. When both parties to the conversation are earnestly, sincerely looking for a way to avoid conflict, it can even solve problems before they result in bloodshed. However, when one or both of the parties are not sincerely looking for a way to avoid a conflict, but are merely stalling for time before instigating violence, communication can be just wasted effort. Witness the accord that Neville Chamberlain signed with Adolph Hitler. Hitler called it "just a piece of paper" right before he invaded Poland.

reply from: RobertFerguson

Christ the "ultimate" pacifist? You have got to be kidding me! Where do you get your information on Christ, because it is certainly NOT the Bible.
John 10:30 "I and my Father are one."
John 5:22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son.
Isaiah prophesied that Jesus would be judge. Isaiah 11:1-4 And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots: And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD; And shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of the LORD: and he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears: But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked.
Jesus Christ is commissioned to judge and to make war against the wicked. Revelation 19:11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. Jude 15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.
and look who fights with Christ
Revelation 19:11-21 proclaims, "I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and makes war. His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean.

reply from: RobertFerguson

That really does not fit the case of abortion and baby killers now does it?
Those who say 'violence never solves anything' have elevated peace above goodness. The have made their own false god, and it's name is Self. Such a god is not found in the Bible- Much like whatthe Israelites did with a golden calf image- these people have fashioned a god of their own immaginations as to what they wish a god would be like.
In their view it is better for evil to prevail than to use violence to end that evil- since in their mind the very use of violence renders the user of it evil. That just is not true. Christ should quite clearly that violence can be moral. When Christ returns He will show that violence can be just.

reply from: RobertFerguson

And all the talk in the world hasn't stopped it.

reply from: Sigma

It seems more like they have equated peace with goodness. Logically, then, any who practice or advocate violence would not be good people.

reply from: galen

Gee , I actually thank you siggy...
For the rest... Christ, whom you have not yet quoted, was the one who ordered Peter to put down his sword in the garden. Those that live by the sword will die by the sword. Even if it seems futile to others i will still not resort to violence to solve things. as far as Iraq... what would happen if we just left.... one of 2 things. 1 we would leave a country that has been given the tools of democracy to work things out on its own... and they will eventually do so. or 2. we will leave that said country and they will all tear themselves to pieces... in either way it is THIER country and we need to let Them decide how they will govern it. Sometimes you have to fall on your face and pick yourself up to learn how to walk. Either way i will pray that the pacifists in the region prevail.
I do think that they have 1 up on us though... abortion is illegal there.
Mary

reply from: yoda

Well abortionists use violence every day when they kill babies, no matter what anyone says to them. So apparently it hasn't worked so far, no.

reply from: galen

RF your God is a vengefull god... i get that... but how do you discount the NT teachings of Christ. Does it not behoove you to respect the entire Bible and not just the parts that you agree with?
Where in the Bible does it say that man gets to choose who lives and dies? I thought final judgement was reserved for God? if that is true then does it not follow that we should do our best not to step on His toes. The one thing I know about this life is that we all must die someday. Where did it become the perrogative of ANYONE.. abortionists, zealots( of all kinds), juries etc. to decide who lives or dies for any reason?
These are the words of Christ that i have remembered every time i have come into conflict with someone...
John 15: 27
" Peace is my farewell to you, my peace is my gift to you. I do not give it to you as the world gives peace.
John 8: 7
Let the man among you who has no sin be the first to cast a stone at her.
I have no right to condemn someone in the name of man if Christ should pardon one who was to be put to death.
Do you not remember the parable of the weeds? We were ordered to let the weeds grow amongst us less pulling them distroy the harvest. At Harvest time the weeds ( bad people) are separated from the wheat ( good people) and burned, while the wheat is stored into the barn.
Why not do as Christ instructed?
Mary

reply from: faithman

Romans 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.
By definition of the New Testament, the God ordained purpose of government is to be a terror to evil, and the arm that carries the sword of His wrath and vengance. Our founding documents place the sword of justice in the hands of "WE THE PEOPLE". Our government is supposed to make evil doers affraid, not secure in preforming their evil. Unless, of course, you agree with Planned Parenthood that abortion is not evil. If abortion is evil, and an act of murder, then the Bible [including the new testament] and our founding documents, demand justice, includding the use of deadly force.

reply from: galen

Where do you get off by saying i agree w/ PP? Do you not listen?
Also Romans states we should be afraid of God's wrath. Not that men should weild HIS sword. God is quite capable of weilding it Himself.
Mary

reply from: galen

As to you reply in Romans
i submit Rom 13:8-10
Owe no debt to anyone except the debt that binds us to love one another.He who loves his neighbor has fufilled the law.the commandments ' you shall not commit adultery','you shallnot murder','You shall not steal','You shallnot covet',and any other commandment there may beare all summed up in this,'You shall love your neighbor as youself.' Love never wrongs the neighbor hence love fufills the law.
The chapter you quoted is also an observance of authority here on earth... Give unto Cesar what is cesars... it is NOT an exholtation to commit murder or vigilaneism... both of which are against the law in these United States.
Before you make refrence maybe you should read the whole of Romans and see what is really said and not just pick out a few lines which furthur your point when taken out of context.
Mary

reply from: RobertFerguson

I don't discount them. I love the NT. Christ said in the NT I and my Father are one. God is the same yesterday today and forever also in the NT Lots of great NT verses. Also lots of great OT verses.
Timothy says that the OT is to be used for our doctrine. He does not say that about the NT does he? No! Obviously not, since the NT was not even written at the time God inspired Timothy to write this. But... I accept the NT as profitable also, is there a problem with that? One does not conflict with the other. God is the same wrath filled God in the NT as He was in the OT. God does not change. God hates sinners.
His character remains the same.
The Bible has plenty of places where God commanded men to kill. No one is saying that the men decided.
And no one is conducting a final judgement when one defends a preborn with lethal force. That is only an artly judgement.
Sure. Show me where God discriminates against the preborn by denying them with an equal defense to that of the born. If you cannot produce that, perhaps you had best be careful to not step on His toes.
No one has claimed making any such decision. Only that God may indeed instruct men to act justly in defense of the preborn child in the sdame manner that is just for the born child.
Great verses. If the Holy Spirit brings them to you mind, it would be wise to keep them close to YOUR heart and act on them. But what if the Holy Spirit brings other verses to the heart of others? Should they not keep them close to their hearts and act on them?
You do understand that in the body of Christ, there are different functions, yes? You should be thankful that you are not called to deliver a message that is biblical yet unpopular like Jeremiah or like a proclaimer of equal defensive action for all.
Not everyone is going to have the same job. Yet some were called to be like Ehud the left hander who plunged a sword into the King and killed him. The Bible is plentiful in such examples.
One could ask why you discount these biblical teachings that the NT says are profitable for us, and are to be used for our doctrine.
Does your doctine have room for a man to plung a sword into a king and kill him? If not- is you who has the problem.
You mean when Chist said that it would be BETTER for a milstone to be tied around the neck of one who offends the little ones?
let me ask you... Did you ever write to paul Hill or to James Kopp? Christ instructs us to care for them as though we are imprisoned with them, doe she not? Have you done that? If not let's apply your own question back to you "Why not do as Christ instructed?"
Christ did not say for you to judge those who are imprisoned for what they are there for and decide if they are 'good enough' to gain your obedience to Christ's command. We are ONLY commanded to care for them as though you were suffering with them.
Does your doctine include a man plunging a sword into a king killing him?

reply from: RobertFerguson

Musilm nations have more than just "One up" on us. They also execute homos. That makes them at least "two up" on us.

reply from: galen

As far as writing PH yes actually i did as did several other women i was in a study group with... the letters were returned to us unopened.
mary

reply from: galen

Christ said to tie the millstone around your own neck... not have someone else judge it be done for your... he also said not to cast the first stone.
mary

reply from: RobertFerguson

Christ is no pacifist Mary. Definately not. I note that you di dnot adress one single scripture from that post.
Ray Comfort said this about God:
The God of the New Testament is the same as the God of the Old Testament. The Bible says that He never changes. He is just as merciful in the Old Testament as He is in the New Testament. Read Nehemiah 9 for a summary of how God mercifully forgave Israel, again and again, after they repeatedly sinned and turned their back on Him. The psalms often speak of God's mercy poured out on sinners.
He is also just as wrath-filled in the New Testament as He is in the Old. He killed a husband and wife in the Book of Acts, simply because they told one lie.
Jesus warned that He was to be feared because He has the power to cast the body and soul into hell.
The apostle Paul said that he persuaded men to come to the Savior because he knew the "terror of the Lord." Read the dreadful judgments of the New Testament's Book of Revelation. That will put the "fear of God" in you, which incidentally is "the beginning of wisdom."
Perhaps the most fearful display of His wrath is seen in the cross of Jesus Christ. His fury so came upon the Messiah that it seems God enshrouded the face of Jesus in darkness so that creation couldn't gaze upon His unspeakable agony.
Whether we like it or not, our God is a consuming fire of holiness (Hebrews 12:29). He isn't going to change, so we had better ...before the Day of Judgment. If we repent, God, in His mercy, will forgive us and grant us eternal life in heaven with Him.

reply from: RobertFerguson

FM did not say this. You need to pay attention, read with comprehension and stop with the falsehoods.
The NT does not conflict with the OT. God is the same in both. His character is the same- it does not change.

reply from: RobertFerguson

I appreciate that you tried to reach out, however you do understand that according to the Bible your failing to minister to those imprisoned like Paul Hill was a failure to minister to Christ.
If they were returned you did not follow the rules of the prison system then. Do you always fail to complete a task before you?

reply from: galen

Luke 6: 36-37
' Be compassionate as your Father is compassionate. Do not judge and you will not be judged. Do not condemn and you will not be condemned. pardon and you will be pardoned.
remember the Golden rule in mathew... Do unto others as you would have those do unto you... this sums up the law and the prophets... yo
you see Christ felt that there has been too much reading into the 10 commandn=ments by the people of the jews who wrote the law... they were forcing others to do what they wanted by finding a way to twist the 10 commandments to fit whatever would be profitable to them, therby corrupting the law and bringing the Jews further from God. the message of God was lost on the people becuse they were too removed from its original meaning.
Once again i ask you where specifically does Christ tell us to go out and kill in God's name?
i submitt to you that if the verses are agressive in nature you might look at who is really putting them into your heart.
Mary

reply from: galen

actually it was he who returned them... without reading them.
Mary

reply from: galen

-----------------
This last statement seems to imply that i felt that....
mary

reply from: RobertFerguson

Document or retract.
I'll provide verses for you and you can just do the retracting cause that is a straight out lie.
Luke 17:2 It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.
Mark 9:42 And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea
Matthew 18:6 But whosoever shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
Not one word about who is to do the hanging of the millstone in any of the gospels only that it would be BETTER for him that such were done.

reply from: galen

sorry but RC is not God... just one mans interpretation. i do not think his display at the crucifiction was wrath ... more like sorrow... if it was wrath then why were we not all destroyed then. it make smore sense that god knew what was to happen just as Christ did and allowed it for our salvation. once again... Christ was able to do away with the need for violenvce here on earth by sacrificing himself for us... we have no need for bloodshed in His name any longer if we all follow his commandment... to love one another.
Mary

reply from: galen

Document or retract.
I'll provide verses for you and you can just do the retracting cause that is a straight out lie.
Luke 17:2 It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.
Mark 9:42 And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea
Matthew 18:6 But whosoever shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
Not one word about who is to do the hanging of the millstone in any of the gospels only that it would be BETTER for him that such were done.
right not one word about who... but the implication to me and others is that we judge ourselves... not have others do it for us as is stated in Luke 6:36-37.
Mary

reply from: RobertFerguson

You must be catholic. They always seem to not know their Bibles and make up quotes.
Jesus did not say "not to cast the first stone"
KJV "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."
Offering an equal defense is not seeking vengeance or punishment on abortionists. It is simply defensive. Now Christ could use the act of a defender to execute his judgment in the same manner He is able to use any other part of His creation to execute judgement. However the heart of defensive action is not punishment or judgement.
Defense of self or another is not vengeance.
Vengeance is a different discussion entirely. One that we might be able to discuss when we are done with the just and equal defense of preborn using force.
Does God use His own to execute His vengeance? Evidently so, that is what it says in [Nm. 31:3]
"Select men from your midst and arm them for war, to attack the Midianites and execute the LORD'S vengeance on them."
I know He also uses the pagans as He did with the Babylonians conquering Judah and as He may use the pagan Muslims to bring vengeance on our country for it's unrepentant sins.
But back to defense..
What does the Bible say about defensive action that kills another? Moses killed. Phinehas killed. Ehud killed the King. Many men of God killed in defense and God did not condemn them.
He rewarded Phinehas for his zeal in killing two people with an everlasting priest hood. Moses, was made the Deliverer of Israel after he delivered the slave from the hands of the unjust Egyptian task master. Ehud is a hero of the faith and his example is to be used for our doctrine according to Timothy.

reply from: galen

Moses was also kept out of the promised land for not following god's law....
you must be Protestant... you always seem to be able to turn a phrase to suit you needs . LOL
yes i am Catholic... not to undemine FM who still seems to think i am some sort of satanist. i am Also Goth, a woman, a nurse , a teacher,a wife, a mother, a rape survivor, an aunt, a daughter and a sister........
i do not make up quotes i do however, sometimes paraphrase them... i also probably use a diffrent version than the one you use. king james was not the sort of person i admire... i tend to go back further and then use a modern translation that all people can esily understan. Elizabethan pharses can be quite tedious don't you think?
mary

reply from: RobertFerguson

If I were killing babies, I would want someone to stop me.

Plenty of examples have been given where killings were commanded by God. Need I list them all for you for the upteenth time?
Christ said I and my Father are one. The NT tells us that God inspired (breathed) into the scriptures.
Is God and His Holy Word liars when He commded men to kill or are you?

reply from: RobertFerguson

Paul did not return letters unopened- only the prison. Plenty of others had their letters go through.
You did not answer the question.
Have you written to any of the folowing brothers and sisters? Or do you always stop when you fail?
James C. Kopp #11761-055
Niagara County Jail
P.O. Box 496
Lockport NY 14094
Rachelle Shannon #59755-065
FCI Dublin
5701 8th. St. Camp Park
Dublin CA 94568
Don Benny Anderson #06260-026
Federal Correctional Institution
Post Office Box 5000
Pekin IL 61555-5000

reply from: galen

no i am not a liar... however i did spend time with my NT today just far this... i have Yet to finds a passage where Christ stated it was ok or even purposeful for us to go out and kill each other. in fact he states over and over again that he is there so we do not have too....
Why do you doubt him so much... do you not trust Christ to do as He says. He did after all die for you?
mary

reply from: galen

Nope never had any addresses for them... but now I will..
I will let you know.
it was my understanding from the bishop we were learning with at the time that Mr hill desired no contact from anyone at the time... it was quite near the date of his execution, and that out of respect for him we should cease any other attempts. To my recollection there were numerous others in the parish that had tried to do the same with similar results at an earlier time.
mary

reply from: holopaw

It's ironic that those who are sounding the alarm against the use of force seem to resort so much to hyperbole and exaggeration, almost as if the cannot find any rational criticisms to make. They make these wild charges against their perception of what certain posters stand for, rather than what they have actually said.
It's as if these people were not entitled to be judged for their actual words, but rather by what these alarmists think they stand for.
That's not accurate, it's not fair, and IMO it's not American. And I think it shows a certain inclination to be influenced by proabort propaganda about the use of force to defend babies.
I find it ironic that you say this, considering the fact that you have not offered any logical argument in defense of murder, but continuously criticize those who disagree with the ones who openly defend anarchy. I think Robert, John, and others have made it clear what they "stand for."
You have a lot to say, but none of it seems to have anything to do with offering logical arguments for unnecessary violence. You seem interested only in defending some individuals by criticizing others. "Use of force to defend babies?" I don't think that's "accurate." These people are trying to condone murdering abortion providers and discouraging them through the use of terrorism, in fact, it seems obvious that the purpose behind the discussions themselves is terrorism.
IMHO, it is "anti-American" to promote anarchy, which is obviously what Robert and others are doing. To refer to those who disagree with these extremist views as "alarmists" would seem to me an "irrational criticism," which would make your post appear highly hypocritical in my view. I noticed you have voiced no public disapproval of the personal attacks and obviously "irrational criticism" from the extremists! You remain conspicuously silent and obviously reluctant to criticize any statements made by Robert and his cronies, yet openly criticize anyone who dares disagree with them.
Your obviously biased loyalty and hypocrisy in defending these anarchists, largely by personal criticism rather than logical argument is quite disheartening.
GE 6:11-17, 7:11-24 God is unhappy with the wickedness of man and decides to do something about it. He kills every living thing on the face of the earth other than Noah's family and thereby makes himself the greatest mass murderer in history.
GE 19:26 God personally sees to it that Lot's wife is turned to a pillar of salt (for having looked behind her while fleeing the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah).
GE 38:9 "... whenever he lay with his brother's wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother. What he did was wicked ..., so the Lord put him to death."

reply from: RobertFerguson

-----------------
This last statement seems to imply that i felt that....
Hogwash. It clearly says UNLESS OF COURSE YOU AGREE with PP that abortion is not evil.
But If you say THAT description fits you... well I guess you 'get off saying that you agree with PP'. who am I to be able to judge?
But FM did not say this.
I think you need to pay MUCH closer attention, read with comprehension and stop with the falsehoods.
heck, you cannot even quote scripture correctly half the time.

reply from: galen

Good night Mr Ferguson... i will continue this tomarrow... right now i need sleep so i can teach class in the AM..
Happy Advent
mary

reply from: galen

Said in such away that it seems the writer is facious is the statement.
i took each quote directly from my Bible... and marked it as a quote... who gave you the right to tell me how i quote or paraphrase anything??
BTW where have i EVER lied to you??
Mary

reply from: RobertFerguson

is that the best that you have? Attacking the messenger? Ray Comfort is a well respected evangelist and you, who are you that your opinion should be accepted over Brother Ray's?
Lots of opinion but not one single offer of substance. The NT has many accounts of violence after Christ.
In Acts God kills a couple.
In Rev. Christ kills many along withthe help of His followers.
The God of the NT is the same God. He does not change. His character does not change.
why did you refuse to address anything aboutthe character of God in Ray's quote?
I'll tell you why. You can't and remain consistant that Christ (God Incarnate) has somehow changed into some pansy pacifist that no longer uses men to do His work as has been His practice from day one on this earth.

reply from: RobertFerguson

Is THAT your retraction then?
Gee, I do not see any mention of a milstone in these verses to substantiate your claim that "Christ said to tie the millstone around your own neck"
That was a lie wasn't it?
We were not even talking about chapter 6 were we? No! You were answering to a DIRECT and SPECIFIC verse mentioned by me.
And there is not even an implication of your false claim that " Christ said to tie the millstone around your own neck" in these verses, Luke 17:2 Mark 9:42 Matthew 18:6 that were being spoken of, is there? No.
An honest person would retract now that the documentatiojn has proved you to be a liar. Are you such a person?

reply from: RobertFerguson

Moses, was made the Deliverer of Israel after he delivered the slave from the hands of the unjust Egyptian task master.
That was for the disobedience regarding the burning bush, not for defending a slave with lethal force, correct?

reply from: RobertFerguson

I am afraid that the biblical quotes prove otherwise You claimed one thing and the Bible said another.
And yet you still made false claims as to what it says.
Do you reject that God instructed men to kill?
"I and the Father are One." JOHN 10:30
Where are these many NT quotes of Christ saying He "is there so we do not have too.... " No lies, No made up sayings. None of your opinions. I know Catholics do not embrace the Word of God but many others use it as a light unto our path and a lamp unto our path so Let's have the Word of the Living God as shown in the Bible saying God "is there so we do not have too.... "

reply from: RobertFerguson

Addresses are on line in many places. All you had to do was look.
Great, I hope you are educated.
You think that a Catholic Bishop knew what Paul Hill wanted? Wouldn't have been best to look into this yourself instead of trusting in these Bishops that have led so many down a path of heresy? I hope you do not do that with the Bible teaching as well.
Hill was on death row for 11 years. since those who'se gift from you would have been ministry to Christ- you have shown how you would reject Christ in bonds for 11 years. You tried but once and only near the end. shameful how you treated him.
That seems to be in complete conflict with your stance that Hill ws wrong. If that is what you truely beleive than even more of an urgancy fo ryou to try to reach him for repentance to save his soul ACCORDING TO YOUR BELIEF THAT HE IS WRONG.
instead you stay silent and hold back the very oppportunity that your ilk say he took from abortionist Britton, an opportunity to repent.
If you do not know the restrcitions of specific prisons this will happen. I have had lots of petters returned because of errors. You have to show that you are consistent and steadfast in your faith. Even IF one prisoner doe snot accept letters there are lots of others. Who else did you... Opps.. I forgot... you already answered that you have not written to the others.

reply from: RobertFerguson

So is THIS your admission and retraction? I'm still looking for it.

reply from: RobertFerguson

Implying that you are such an honest woman... is THIS your retraction and admisson that Jesus never actually said such things? Let me know cause I'm still waiting. ;-p

reply from: galen

interesting that you wrote all of this AFTER you knew i had logged off.... Coward.
My statements stand ... if you want to twist the Bible around to make yourself feel better than so be it... i will know you when i see you.
Why do you attack someone's denomination.... especially when we are both supposed to be on the same side?
This particular discourse prooves my point. You and the others on here want no real dialouge and no real resolution... you just want people to do things Your way. not God's or Christ's or even a moral way... as long as they believe what YOU want them to... and to hell with whatever you happen to be fighting for.
mary

reply from: galen

Also my having a diffrent denomination and/ or diffrent interpretation of the Bible than YOU do does not make me a liar but it does make you a bigot.
mary
bigot




big·ot [ bígg?t ] (plural big·ots)
noun

Definition:

intolerant person: somebody with strong opinions, especially on politics, religion, or ethnicity, who refuses to accept different views

[Late 16th century. < French]

big·ot·ed adjective
big·ot·ry noun








Encarta® World English Dictionary [North American Edition] © & (P)2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Developed for Microsoft by Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.

reply from: faithman

Addresses are on line in many places. All you had to do was look.
Great, I hope you are educated.
You think that a Catholic Bishop knew what Paul Hill wanted? Wouldn't have been best to look into this yourself instead of trusting in these Bishops that have led so many down a path of heresy? I hope you do not do that with the Bible teaching as well.
Hill was on death row for 11 years. since those who'se gift from you would have been ministry to Christ- you have shown how you would reject Christ in bonds for 11 years. You tried but once and only near the end. shameful how you treated him.
That seems to be in complete conflict with your stance that Hill ws wrong. If that is what you truely beleive than even more of an urgancy fo ryou to try to reach him for repentance to save his soul ACCORDING TO YOUR BELIEF THAT HE IS WRONG.
instead you stay silent and hold back the very oppportunity that your ilk say he took from abortionist Britton, an opportunity to repent.
If you do not know the restrcitions of specific prisons this will happen. I have had lots of petters returned because of errors. You have to show that you are consistent and steadfast in your faith. Even IF one prisoner doe snot accept letters there are lots of others. Who else did you... Opps.. I forgot... you already answered that you have not written to the others.
I wrote letters to Mr. Hill on a number of occasions, and he was glad to get them. I have also written to others in jail, and have always been well recieved. Hill was cut off from his deffence by the trial judge, andf was also not allowed to have the atorney of his choice. It was after the rulings of the court that Hill became silent, and said nothing more in his defence. This is all well documented by Life Dymanics "News Talk" video magazine, of August 2003. You can order a copy from them. You might also take note that the official stance of Life Dynamics is anti-deffence. So this is a pretty objective view of the Paul Hill case.

reply from: galen

HMMM interesting... thanks for that info.
mary

reply from: JohnGlenn

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

reply from: Banned Member

12/02/2006
Nothing has changed.


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