Trump sez: Transgenders B gone!

[ok doser]

looks like it :idunno:

 

[Tambora]

And don't forget, they also quote verses saying that the governing authorities are appointed by God and to be obeyed...

Sure, but they put qualifiers on it ---- if the civil law goes against the moral law (Mosaic law) then the civil law is not to be obeyed.
The problem with that is that JR says we should disregard the civil law concerning adultery if it opposes the Mosaic moral law which says do stone them to death.
But not even he does that.
Instead he says he doesn't stone them to death BECAUSE OF THE CIVIL LAW which he claims is not the moral way to treat adulterers.
And the flip-flops continue.

Don't know about you, AB, but I can live by faith whether I ever stone adulterers to death or not.
Don't need no law at all to live by faith.
And in fact, Paul tells us the law is not of faith.

Galatians 3:10-14 KJV
(10) For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
(11) But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
(12) And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
(13) Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
(14) That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

 

[glorydaz]

A tangled web they weave for themselves.

One the one hand they say one should not obey the civil law if it is not moral.
And that stoning them to death is the moral thing to do, and one should do the moral thing no matter what the civil law says.
But then they say they don't do the moral thing (stone them to death), but instead obey the civil law that says not to while still insisting that one must do the moral thing no matter what the civil law says.

They're expecting the law to do what the law was never intended to do.

Tilting at windmills.

 

[fool]

looks like it :idunno:

There are currently 166 users online. 26 members and 140 guests

 

[JudgeRightly]

It cannot be true of GOD to say to obey civil authorities and then in the next breath say the civil authorities are wrong to obey.

Did you miss me saying that obeying the government is a general rule of thumb? Because that's the only thing I can think of that would cause your confusion, apart from willful ignorance of what the Bible says...

If the civil law concerning adultery (don't stone them) is against the Mosaic law, and therefore you should be obeying the Mosaic law of adultery because it is moral and the civil law is not moral; then you should be stoning adulterers.

I shouldn't be doing ANYTHING in regards to punishing criminals, because I don't have that authority. I leave that to the government, because that is its proper role in society.

Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. - Romans 12:19 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans12:19&version=NKJV

Paul then goes on to describe how governments are appointed (no, Arty, not "chosen") by God.

So again, what's the holdup of stoning adulterers since you claim one should do the moral thing per the Mosaic law even if the civil law opposes it?

No one but the government has the right to punish criminals. (And God on Judgment day, of course, but that's a different topic.)

Therefore, while I obey the civil authorities, the government, in that I don't punish criminals, I recognize that the current laws are corrupt, and do not reflect God's law, and so I advocate that man's law be changed to reflect God's law, so that criminals are punished justly.

You cannot use the excuse of obeying the civil authorities and not stone them to death if you truly believe GOD wants you to be doing the moral thing (stoning them)

Straw man. See below.

despite what the civil law says.

God doesn't want ME specifically (or citizens in general) to be the ones to punish criminals.

Why this is so hard for you to understand is beyond me...

So is it still your contention that we must do the moral thing (stone them)

The moral thing to do is to advocate that the government punish criminals appropriately, not that we ourselves stone the criminals.

Please stop putting up this straw man argument.

since the civil law is not the moral thing to do?

Obeying the government is the moral thing to do. Except when the government says to do something that violates God's law.

That is the standard to use.

If so, be moral and stone them to death.
NOT stoning them would be immoral, right?

You're completely missing the point.

We don't have to take it to the extreme.

Sure we do.

It's the best way to test hypotheticals.

So please, could you answer my question?

Either you are being immoral by not stoning them to death (as the civil law says), or you can be moral and stone them to death.

False dichotomy.

God says that the government should execute those who commit adultery.

The GOVERNMENT, not the civilians.

When the government does not do its rightful duty in punishing criminals appropriately, then we the people have the responsibility to commit civil disobedience.

I feel like I'm repeating myself. I shouldn't have to, this is extremely simple.

Which should you be doing now --- being moral and stoning them to death or being immoral and not stoning them to death?

False dilemma.

I shouldn't be doing anything regarding criminal justice, except for advocating that criminals be punished appropriately by the government.

You can't use the excuse of not stoning them per the civil law if you say you must do what is moral despite what the civil law says.

Man's law can be immoral. God's law was not, is not, and never will be immoral.

In the situations where MAN'S law contradicts God's law, we disobey man's law, and follow God's law.

A tangled web they weave for themselves.

One the one hand they say one should not obey the civil law if it is not moral.

Correct.

And that stoning them to death is the moral thing to do,

Correct.

and one should do the moral thing no matter what the civil law says.

Correct.

But then they say they don't do the moral thing (stone them to death),

Correct, BECAUSE IT'S NOT OUR RESPONSIBILITY!!! It's the responsibility of the GOVERNMENT!!!!!

but instead obey the civil law that says not to while still insisting that one must do the moral thing no matter what the civil law says.

One can both simultaneously obey some laws while criticizing others, Tam.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Sure, but they put qualifiers on it ---- if the civil law goes against the moral law (Mosaic law) then the civil law is not to be obeyed.
The problem with that is that JR says we should disregard the civil law concerning adultery if it opposes the Mosaic moral law which says do stone them to death.
But not even he does that.
Instead he says he doesn't stone them to death BECAUSE OF THE CIVIL LAW which he claims is not the moral way to treat adulterers.
And the flip-flops continue.

Don't know about you, AB, but I can live by faith whether I ever stone adulterers to death or not.
Don't need no law at all to live by faith.
And in fact, Paul tells us the law is not of faith.

Galatians 3:10-14 KJV
(10) For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
(11) But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
(12) And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
(13) Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
(14) That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

Go read my above post. I'm not gonna repeat myself.

 

[ok doser]

...

like i said, you've been away

if you read between the lines you find:

There are currently 166 users online. 13 members, 7 trolls, 9 retards and 140 guests

 

[ok doser]

Did you miss me saying that obeying the government is a general rule of thumb? Because that's the only thing I can think of that would cause your confusion, apart from willful ignorance of what the Bible says...

i don't understand why she's playing this silly game, unless she's just doing it to lap up artie's adoration :idunno:

 

[glorydaz]

Go read my above post. I'm not gonna repeat myself.

I have a question for you, JR. One that requires you to put on a different hat....as an ambassador for Jesus Christ.

2 Corinthians 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.​

I'm not sure if you remember one of Clete's posts in his Gospel thread, but he said something that I think we can all agree with. "Where there is life, there is hope". If the purpose of the Law is to lead men to Christ, won't killing them take that option off the table?

People who live in this world commit all kinds of sin, and they break a lot of laws. They hurt others and themselves. Many of them will reach such a low point in their lives....losing their family because of adultery, for instance. Always searching for happiness through something other than God. Until they're brought to their knees - not on the chopping block - but in their own unhappiness caused by their own sinful ways, they will never be open to hearing the Gospel when it's preached to them.

Sure, lots of people claim to be saved, but they would not be seeking happiness somewhere else if they knew the Lord.

"Where there is life, there is hope."

Our brother, Steko, has a prison ministry.

Where there is life, there is hope.

 

[glorydaz]

i don't understand why she's playing this silly game, unless she's just doing it to lap up artie's adoration :idunno:

Oh stop. Is this a discussion board or isn't it? You got an argument to make....make it.
So far, you haven't been very convincing.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I have a question for you, JR. One that requires you to put on a different hat....as an ambassador for Jesus Christ.

2 Corinthians 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.​

I'm not sure if you remember one of Clete's posts in his Gospel thread, but he said something that I think we can all agree with. "Where there is life, there is hope". If the purpose of the Law is to lead men to Christ, won't killing them take that option off the table?

People who live in this world commit all kinds of sin, and they break a lot of laws. They hurt others and themselves. Many of them will reach such a low point in their lives....losing their family because of adultery, for instance. Always searching for happiness through something other than God. Until they're brought to their knees - not on the chopping block - but in their own unhappiness caused by their own sinful ways, they will never be open to hearing the Gospel when it's preached to them.

Sure, lots of people claim to be saved, but they would not be seeking happiness somewhere else if they knew the Lord.

"Where there is life, there is hope."

Our brother, Steko, has a prison ministry.

Where there is life, there is hope.

I completely agree.

Which is why I said before in this very thread that criminals who are convicted of capital crimes would be given the opportunity to repent of their sin and turn to God, all the way up to the moment of their execution.

If they reject Him all the way up to that point and do not accept Christ, then they are put to death and sent to await final judgment in hell.

If they accept Him at any point between sentencing and their execution, they are still put to death, but they no longer have to fear death, because when they are put to death, they will be present with the Lord.

Either way, Justice is served.

 

[ok doser]

Oh stop. Is this a discussion board or isn't it? You got an argument to make....make it.
So far, you haven't been very convincing.

my argument is that you and tam for some unfathomable reason are being trolls

artie and quip i don't expect anything else from

 

[ok doser]

I completely agree.

Which is why I said before in this very thread that criminals who are convicted of capital crimes would be given the opportunity to repent of their sin and turn to God, all the way up to the moment of their execution.

If they reject Him all the way up to that point and do not accept Christ, then they are put to death and sent to await final judgment in hell.

If they accept Him at any point between sentencing and their execution, they are still put to death, but they no longer have to fear death, because when they are put to death, they will be present with the Lord.

Either way, Justice is served.

glory wants to put justice on the shelf, replace it with mercy

but glory doesn't believe punishment acts as a deterrent :dizzy:

 

[ok doser]

Oh stop. Is this a discussion board...?

not in this thread, apparently

for some reason this thread has become a training ground for identifying logical fallacies

 

[ok doser]

Where there is life, there is hope.

are you against the death penalty in toto?

 

[glorydaz]

my argument is that you and tam for some unfathomable reason are being trolls

artie and quip i don't expect anything else from

That's a dumb thing to say.

We're participating in this thread.
Must we agree with you before we're allowed to do that?

 

[ok doser]

That's a dumb thing to say.

We're participating in this thread.
Must we agree with you before we're allowed to do that?

your (you and tam) participation in this thread has been a series of strawmen followed by an orgy of self-satisfied back-clapping among the two of you and the two retards who don't believe in God, but are happy to dogpile on those who believe He should be heeded

 

[glorydaz]

I completely agree.

Which is why I said before in this very thread that criminals who are convicted of capital crimes would be given the opportunity to repent of their sin and turn to God, all the way up to the moment of their execution.

If they reject Him all the way up to that point and do not accept Christ, then they are put to death and sent to await final judgment in hell.

If they accept Him at any point between sentencing and their execution, they are still put to death, but they no longer have to fear death, because when they are put to death, they will be present with the Lord.

Either way, Justice is served.

Which might work fine for those who shed innocent blood, although I place no stock in jail house conversions.


But it sure won't work for those who could learn from reaping what they have sown. We preach the Gospel to sinners. All kinds of sinners who don't yet have seared consciences.

You might very well be standing in God's way...not doing His bidding.

The government's job is to protect us from KILLERS and such....not adulterers and other such moral crimes. They are there for our SAFETY not our moral outrage.

 

[glorydaz]

your (you and tam) participation in this thread has been a series of strawmen followed by an orgy of self-satisfied back-clapping among the two of you and the two retards who don't believe in God, but are happy to dogpile on those who believe He should be heeded

You're a fine pot to call the kettle black. You pat yourself on the back without ceasing. :chuckle:

 

[glorydaz]

are you against the death penalty in toto?

Nope