Oh the Irony...

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
4d61a5637a004e93275261ff7fdd0760.jpg

rather, a refusal of the attempts by the socialist/marxist/communist left to justify using the force of the state to take that which should be freely given
 
Last edited:

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
so by that logic a baby does not have the right to life :sigh:

good point, but I'd nuance that by saying that by that logic a baby doesn't have the right to the care that insures life

for instance

millions of people die from starvation every year

would it, therefore, be justifiable to take away the salaries of all the UN officials and staff to prevent that?

Arthur Brain , why or why not?
 

way 2 go

Well-known member
something very like - I had in mind a situation I found myself in forty years ago, out on the water in a boat that died, very late in the season with a storm blowing in, on an island with resources that would have provided for survival if I was willing to break a lock or two.
no God given right to steal
biblicaly speaking you would have to pay restitution for the damage done by the B&E & for the supplies taken
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
so by that logic a baby does not have the right to life :sigh:

What?

How can you live with yourself when your mind is so twisted and hideous?!

Who besides God provides life to a baby? Are you referring to food and shelter? That too is provided by God so long as we don't forcibly rip a baby from it's mother's womb.

After the baby is born, God continues to provide for the child through his mother's breast. Are you suggesting that because a baby cannot feed itself that a mother has the right to refuse to allow the child to suckle her breast? The child didn't choose to be born or even conceived. The parents made that choice and there are consequences and responsibilities that come along with it, including providing for the needs of their own children.

Of course, the avoidance of consequences of one's actions is what the left is all about, right? The lazy shouldn't go hungry, the incompetent shouldn't be poor, the slut shouldn't have to mother her children, the thief shouldn't be made to pay restitution and the murderer shouldn't be executed.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber

No!

What the conservative advocates is not selfishness but freedom! The conservative is not apposed to helping the poor, he is apposed to Robin Hood!
Stealing from the rich to give to the poor is a double crime! The thief does his stealing and then the poor receive stolen goods. It is theft that the conservative apposes not charity.

The conservative believes that the man who earned his money is a far better judge of who should be the recipients of his charity than the government is. Just like nearly everything else the government touches, charity is corrupted into something grotesque that has more to do with politicians maintaining their power than it does with helping the poor or downtrodden. Indeed, the politician needs the downtrodden to remain in need of the politician's handouts or else he might pull the lever for something other than the Robin Hood / Santa Claus side of the ticket.
 
Last edited:

Right Divider

Body part
No!

What the conservative advocates is not selfishness but freedom! The conservative is not apposed to helping the poor, it is apposed to Robin Hood!
Stealing from the rich to give to the poor is a double crime! The thief does his stealing and then the poor receive stolen goods. It is theft that the conservative apposes not charity.

The conservative believes that the man who earned his money is a far better judge of who should be the recipients of his charity than the government is. Just like nearly everything else the government touches, charity is corrupted into something grotesque that has more to do with politicians maintaining their power than it does with helping the poor or downtrodden. Indeed, the politician needs the downtrodden to remain in need of the politician's handouts or else he might pull the lever for something other than the Robin Hood / Santa Claus side of the ticket.

Excellent post Clete.

I'm always stunned by the idea that somehow it's "selfish" for people to self-determine how to spend their own money.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
"Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with my own things?"- Jesus

The rest of that verse is also very appropriate:

Mat 20:15 KJV Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good?

Also the words of God:

“You shall not steal.“ . . . You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.” - Exodus 20:15,17 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus20:15,17&version=NKJV

Something we see a lot of today, especially due to the "safety nets" we have in place.
 

way 2 go

Well-known member
Originally posted by Clete View Post


NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO ANYTHING THAT MUST BE PROVIDED TO THEM BY SOMEONE ELSE!!!!
so by that logic a baby does not have the right to life

and ok doser got my point.

good point, but I'd nuance that by saying that by that logic a baby doesn't have the right to the care that insures life



What?

How can you live with yourself when your mind is so twisted and hideous?!

just pointed out a consequence of your logic and you blow a gasket , take a pill dude.


Who besides God provides life to a baby? Are you referring to food and shelter? That too is provided by God so long as we don't forcibly rip a baby from it's mother's womb.

yes, food & shelter

After the baby is born, God continues to provide for the child through his mother's breast. Are you suggesting that because a baby cannot feed itself that a mother has the right to refuse to allow the child to suckle her breast? The child didn't choose to be born or even conceived. The parents made that choice and there are consequences and responsibilities that come along with it, including providing for the needs of their own children.

"NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO ANYTHING THAT MUST BE PROVIDED TO THEM BY SOMEONE ELSE!!!!" clete
 

eider

Well-known member
"Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with my own things?" - Jesus

Jesus didn't own a string of properties, left unoccupied whilst the poor needed shelter.
Jesus owned what he stood up in.

And the he followed the Old Testament poor laws to the letter.
 

God's Truth

New member
Jesus didn't own a string of properties, left unoccupied whilst the poor needed shelter.
Jesus owned what he stood up in.

And the he followed the Old Testament poor laws to the letter.

Jesus makes his home with those who obey.

And, no one gets in His Father's mansion unless they obey.
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
So you have never read the 507 OT laws (separate from the 106 sacrificial/ceremonial ones)....?

You should know them by heart, surely..... not just the ones you sling at others....... ?
Get reading!

"the old testament poor laws" - your words, you get to explain them

hint- there weren't 507 "poor laws"
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
so by that logic a baby does not have the right to life

and ok doser got my point.







just pointed out a consequence of your logic and you blow a gasket , take a pill dude.




yes, food & shelter



"NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO ANYTHING THAT MUST BE PROVIDED TO THEM BY SOMEONE ELSE!!!!" clete

This has nothing to do with my logic you idiotic fool!


The child did not choose to be concieved! Poeple are resposible for the consequences of their own actions and if those consequences include bringing a helpless baby into existence then it's on them to take care of it! To starve it to death is murder!

No one is stealing from the parents in order to feed their child! No taxes are collected from the parents so that the child can eat!

If the parents don't feed, clothe and otherwise protect the child then they are guilty of child abuse and if the child dies as a result they are guilty of murder. How is that not perfectly reasonable common freaking sense?

Do you think that neglected children are better taken care of by the government than privately run and funded charity groups? I dare you to prove it. You won't even try, you disgusting perverted fool!


LORD GOD I HATE THESE PEOPLE!!!!

I'm out of here!


Good bye
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
You really need to read all of the 507.
Then you would find and maybe remember the poor laws.

So, let's take one of these laws and look at it for a moment.

We'll use this one as the example:

‘When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not wholly reap the corners of your field when you reap, nor shall you gather any gleaning from your harvest. You shall leave them for the poor and for the stranger: I am the Lord your God.’ ” - Leviticus 23:22 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus23:22&version=NKJV

Question 1, Eider: Was there any punishment for NOT following this law?

​​​​​​​Question 2: What was the point of this law?
 
Top