11-16-2015, 09:32 PM
Just a simple question. Also, it "turning the cheek" if I shoot someone to defend myself? If people are truly honest here it should be interesting to take what Jesus says...
11-16-2015, 09:32 PM
11-17-2015, 12:37 AM
First why don't you step up and tell us what Jesus says.
11-17-2015, 02:43 PM
This ridiculous question gets asked over and over and over by death penalty opponents. Each time, people rush to explain the very simple distinction between taking the life of an innocent unborn human baby and taking the life of an innocent, unborn human baby who has had no opportunity to offend anybody, let alone murder them.
My question is whether this question asked out of wilful ignorance, or is it asked out of an inability to comprehend the obvious.
Suppose one is faced with a "Sophie's Choice" type of situation. On the one hand, you have a very pregnant woman who is about to deliver a child. On the other hand, you have a hardened criminal who has just been found guilty of mass murder. Your Nazi captors tell you that you must choose between allowing the pregnant woman to deliver her baby and allowing the baby to live and letting the mass murderer live. There is no runner-up prize, the loser dies a quick death as the recipient of a bullet to the back of the head.
Abortion proponents would say that the mass murderer must live because a fetus is not a human life - or if one must live, so should the other. This is the sort of twisted logic that explains how The Puny One ascended to the presidency.
The answer to the question is a very simple YES. Logic dictates the answer.
My question is whether this question asked out of wilful ignorance, or is it asked out of an inability to comprehend the obvious.
Suppose one is faced with a "Sophie's Choice" type of situation. On the one hand, you have a very pregnant woman who is about to deliver a child. On the other hand, you have a hardened criminal who has just been found guilty of mass murder. Your Nazi captors tell you that you must choose between allowing the pregnant woman to deliver her baby and allowing the baby to live and letting the mass murderer live. There is no runner-up prize, the loser dies a quick death as the recipient of a bullet to the back of the head.
Abortion proponents would say that the mass murderer must live because a fetus is not a human life - or if one must live, so should the other. This is the sort of twisted logic that explains how The Puny One ascended to the presidency.
The answer to the question is a very simple YES. Logic dictates the answer.
11-18-2015, 05:29 AM
The better question concerns how anyone can support abortion but oppose the death penalty. In an abortion, an innocent baby is murdered with malice aforethought. On the other hand, in regard to the death penalty, the perpetrator has committed a heinous crime,
has been convicted by a jury of his/her peers, and has had the benefit of years and years of appeals and legal delays.
It is not unusual for one who is sentenced to death to die of natural causes in prison or to have the execution delayed for a quarter of a century or more. That certainly provides no peace for the family of the victim(s) as they continue to suffer year after year.
I have lectured on this topic in college law classes many times. My conclusion is that consistence requires that one either oppose both practices or support both practices. However, it is morally consistent for one to oppose abortion but support capital punishment. To use the liberal mantra of supporting abortion but opposing capital punishment is intellectually fraudulent.
has been convicted by a jury of his/her peers, and has had the benefit of years and years of appeals and legal delays.
It is not unusual for one who is sentenced to death to die of natural causes in prison or to have the execution delayed for a quarter of a century or more. That certainly provides no peace for the family of the victim(s) as they continue to suffer year after year.
I have lectured on this topic in college law classes many times. My conclusion is that consistence requires that one either oppose both practices or support both practices. However, it is morally consistent for one to oppose abortion but support capital punishment. To use the liberal mantra of supporting abortion but opposing capital punishment is intellectually fraudulent.
11-18-2015, 05:42 AM
The better question is how one can support abortion but oppose the death penalty. In the former an innocent baby is deprived of life having committed no crime, having been given no hearing, and having been deprived of the guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment in regard to both equal protection of the laws and due process.
Those sentenced to death by a court of law have been found guilty of a heinous crime by a jury of their peers. They have received appeal and delay over and over usually dying of natural causes. If executed eventually, it is often after a stay in prison of near or more than a quarter of a century. All the while, the family of the victim suffers never having closure.
I have lectured on this topic numerous times in college law classes. It is morally consistent to oppose both abortion and capital punishment. It is consistent, though not moral, to support both abortion and capital punishment. It is morally consistent to oppose abortion but support capital punishment. However, it is not consistent to support abortion but oppose capital punishment. In a civilized society, you cannot murder the innocent and protect the guilty.
Those sentenced to death by a court of law have been found guilty of a heinous crime by a jury of their peers. They have received appeal and delay over and over usually dying of natural causes. If executed eventually, it is often after a stay in prison of near or more than a quarter of a century. All the while, the family of the victim suffers never having closure.
I have lectured on this topic numerous times in college law classes. It is morally consistent to oppose both abortion and capital punishment. It is consistent, though not moral, to support both abortion and capital punishment. It is morally consistent to oppose abortion but support capital punishment. However, it is not consistent to support abortion but oppose capital punishment. In a civilized society, you cannot murder the innocent and protect the guilty.
11-22-2015, 09:34 PM
TheRealThing Wrote:First why don't you step up and tell us what Jesus says.
With pleasure...
If one should harm one of these little ones it would be better to tie a millstone around their neck and throw them into the water
Those that live by the sword shall die by the sword (also what could this mean by gun control)
I say unto you, you have heard an eye for an eye, but I say if you get smacked in the cheek turn and give them your other cheek. (paraphrasing) (also what could this mean about gun control)
Love the Lord with all of your mind, heart and spirit, and the second command love your neighbor as your self.
There are what the Good Lord says... so I ask again my simple question.
11-22-2015, 10:22 PM
tvtimeout Wrote:With pleasure...Your simpleton question has been answered. Convicted murderers have no moral equivalence to innocent unborn human beings. To pretend that the are the same and deserving of the same fate is idiotic.
If one should harm one of these little ones it would be better to tie a millstone around their neck and throw them into the water
Those that live by the sword shall die by the sword (also what could this mean by gun control)
I say unto you, you have heard an eye for an eye, but I say if you get smacked in the cheek turn and give them your other cheek. (paraphrasing) (also what could this mean about gun control)
Love the Lord with all of your mind, heart and spirit, and the second command love your neighbor as your self.
There are what the Good Lord says... so I ask again my simple question.
11-23-2015, 02:42 AM
tvtimeout Wrote:With pleasure...
If one should harm one of these little ones it would be better to tie a millstone around their neck and throw them into the water
Those that live by the sword shall die by the sword (also what could this mean by gun control)
I say unto you, you have heard an eye for an eye, but I say if you get smacked in the cheek turn and give them your other cheek. (paraphrasing) (also what could this mean about gun control)
Love the Lord with all of your mind, heart and spirit, and the second command love your neighbor as your self.
There are what the Good Lord says... so I ask again my simple question.
First, your contention which states that gun control has anything to do with Matt 26:52, or Matt 5:38 is misplaced and therefore irrelevant. As for your having loosely quoted Matt 26:52, I hardly think Christ would sanction Peter's use of the sword to spread the Gospel. I mean, that's what we're seeing from Islam is it not? Israel spent their entire history at war either conquering a people or defending their homeland. Further, the death penalty is straight out of Scripture and so is self defense. In fact, the sin that King Saul committed when the Lord sent him to destroy Amalek, was in not destroying every last person and every last head of livestock. Saul saved the best livestock and the King alive and God took away his kingdom for it. You might want to read the account in 1 Samuel Chapter 15.
I have often heard Matt 18:6 used to defend children and I understand why you referenced it. However, when The Lord says not to "offend one of these little ones" He is warning about false doctrine. One had better not teach them untruths with regard to Spiritual matters. What translation are you referencing when you use the word 'harm' one of these little ones?