Voting with Democrats to allow openly homosexual men and women to serve in the US Armed Forces.
Wanting to legalize all recreational drug use.
I have more if that's not enough.
Pro-life and Democrat
- Thread starter A-Scholten
- Start date
Voting with Democrats to allow openly homosexual men and women to serve in the US Armed Forces.
Wanting to legalize all recreational drug use.
I have more if that's not enough.
Yet He doesn't say that's the reason behind the law prohibiting murder. If you're going to go with God and His Word on abortion (thou shalt not murder), then you're going to have to go with His Word on human sexuality (homosexuality, pornography, prostitution) and recreational drug use as well.
God defines the role of civil government in Romans 13:4.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
never understood that one, especially while they still hold adultery as a criminal offense
Right Divider
Body part
And I didn't say that it was the reason behind it.. You're just always in attack mode.
The reason behind it is that God is the Creator of life and has the just determination of its beginning and end. But the non-aggression principle still applies to it.
- You cannot make every sin illegal or we'd all be in jail.
- You ideas about "recreational drug use" are strange. Perhaps you think that Jesus had a problem too, since He drank alcohol.
Indeed, punishing a murderer would fit just find there. But not so much lesser offences.
Pretty sure RD is against all those as well (correct me if I'm wrong, RD), so not sure why you're being AGGRESSIVE (see what I did there?) towards him.
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Yet He doesn't say that's the reason behind the law prohibiting murder.
Yet God was the "aggressor" towards the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah for sexual immorality, things that didn't involve murder. God was also an "aggressor" throughout the Bible where murder wasn't always involved.
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
If you're going to go with God and His Word on abortion (thou shalt not murder), then you're going to have to go with His Word on human sexuality (homosexuality, pornography, prostitution) and recreational drug use as well.
As seen in God's destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and the Apostle Paul's warning against sexual immorality, God's standard for human sexuality plays a major role in the Bible and a righteous civil government has a obligation to enforce laws against such things as sexual immorality.
The Bible talks about intoxication, which Jesus never became and recreational drug use inherently does.
Yet He doesn't say that's the reason behind the law prohibiting murder.
Yet God was the "aggressor" towards the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah for sexual immorality, things that didn't involve murder. God was also an "aggressor" throughout the Bible where murder wasn't always involved.
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
If you're going to go with God and His Word on abortion (thou shalt not murder), then you're going to have to go with His Word on human sexuality (homosexuality, pornography, prostitution) and recreational drug use as well.
As seen in God's destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and the Apostle Paul's warning against sexual immorality, God's standard for human sexuality plays a major role in the Bible and a righteous civil government has a obligation to enforce laws against such things as sexual immorality.
The Bible talks about intoxication, which Jesus never became and recreational drug use inherently does.
He very well might be, but it appears that he wants civil government left out of those matters (or in the words of the Libertarian Party Platform)
"we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration."
https://www.lp.org/platform/
Sounds like anarchy to me.
Right Divider
Body part
God ... being the AUTHOR of life is not an "aggressor". He owns all things and can do as He pleases.
"Discussing" things with someone as illogical and angry at everyone as you are is impossible.
Once AGAIN. you CANNOT make every SIN ILLEGAL. Or we'd ALL be in JAIL!
To an extent, but you cannot stop sin by making ALL SIN illegal. You would be in jail too.
There are varying levels of "intoxication". Obviously, even drinking a small amount of wine makes the drinker slightly "intoxicated". That is not the kind of "intoxication" that the Bible condemns.
Thank you for attempting to defend Libertarianism (which is indefensible), and a special thanks for not being the aggressor and like you'd done so many times before to others, put me in the woodshed.
Right Divider
Body part
Thanks for being an illogical zealot that doesn't play nice with other people.
Of course it's the same to you because you can't or won't approach abortion objectively. You let emotion dictate your response...not rationality.
You missed it, you side stepped. Slower:You argued-dependency.
So, you are arguing that we have the moral right to kill someone based on his or her degree of dependency on another person? A 2 year old "little one"is more dependent than a teenager. Do we/you have the right to kill the little one,but not the teenager?
Can a mother kill her newborn son, daughter, because he depends on her body for nutrition? Or, imagine you alone witnessed a 2 year old fall into a swimming pool. Would you be justified in declaring, arguing him/her not valuable,because he/she depended on you for his survival?
No. We're not. That's a spurious argument.
So let's use objectivity here:
If you're a demolition man, and someone comes up just before you push the plunger to blow up a building yelling that there's a good possibility that a person is unconscious in the building you're about to blow up.
Do you A) push the plunger, or B) stop and verify that there's no one in the building before you push the plunger?
Yes, you are. Nice sound byte, assert/pound the podium/declare 'victory'/return to cliche echo chamber
You argued-dependency.
So, you are arguing that we have the moral right to kill someone based on his or her degree of dependency on another person? A 2 year old "little one"is more dependent than a teenager. Do we/you have the right to kill the little one,but not the teenager?
Can a mother kill her newborn son, daughter, because he depends on her body for nutrition? Or, imagine you alone witnessed a 2 year old fall into a swimming pool. Would you be justified in declaring, arguing him/her not valuable,because he/she depended on you for his survival?
Know anyone that is dependent on an artificial heart?
Last edited:
Again, that's not an objectice argument against abortion.
Emotional rhetoric. The only thing it serves is your self-righteousness.
Translation: Sound bytes, cliches, as I picked your satanic argument of sophistry apart, leaving you bloodied on the road, slumped on the mat, waiting to be pumped up,again, with more deceit, by your father, so that you can continue to surf the net, looking for some Oprah zingers, gems, such as the above, as all of TOL is mesmerized....Weighty.
Please teach us some more "original"....Please?
Indeed. It's irrelevant to the abortion issue. Likewise, my B answer.