Self justification

[steaver]

The GOVERNMENT can make whatever laws they want. Christians should not be advocates for laws that go against God's word. He says choices can be made so stop trying to take away those choices.

How does advocating or supporting a governmental law against murder advocating against God's Word? are you saying God never said "do not murder"? The choice to disobey is always there, law or no law, that is a strawman argument. It's the punishment for breaking that law which is what is meant to remove these murderers from society so as to reduce as much loss of innocent life as possible.

You still never answered....Do you want there to be no governmental laws against murder or rape which can remove these offenders from freely walking among us?

 

[Zaac]

How does advocating or supporting a governmental law against murder advocating against God's Word? are you saying God never said "do not murder"?

We weren't talking about murder. We were talking about abortion laws and taking away the CHOICE of being able to get an abortion.

The choice to disobey is always there, law or no law, that is a strawman argument. It's the punishment for breaking that law which is what is meant to remove these murderers from society so as to reduce as much loss of innocent life as possible

Nope. You're still advocating the taking away of the choice and attempting to use punishment as the deterrent. That's man's way. That is NOT God's way.
.

You still never answered....Do you want there to be no governmental laws against murder or rape which can remove these offenders from freely walking among us?

You never answered. Do you think God is a liar? Did He not say that all things were permissible?

As I said, the government can make whatever laws they want.

 

[steaver]

We weren't talking about murder. We were talking about abortion laws and taking away the CHOICE of being able to get an abortion.

You are the one making a general statement that Christians should not be advocating governmental laws, any laws. So I will ask you again....How does advocating or supporting a governmental law against murder advocating against God's Word? are you saying God never said "do not murder"?

Nope. You're still advocating the taking away of the choice and attempting to use punishment as the deterrent. That's man's way. That is NOT God's way.

"Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;
Or unto governors, as unto them that are SENT BY HIM for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well". (1Pt 2)

You never answered. Do you think God is a liar? Did He not say that all things were permissible?

Here it is again....
You still never answered....Do you want there to be no governmental laws against murder or rape which can remove these offenders from freely walking among us?
Every time you deflect you show you cannot defend your position....

 

[Zaac]

You are the one making a general statement that Christians should not be advocating governmental laws, any laws.

Nice try. But that ain't what I said.

So I will ask you again....How does advocating or supporting a governmental law against murder advocating against God's Word? are you saying God never said "do not murder"?

And I'll say again, we weren't talking about murder, but about abortion and laws taking away the choice.

"Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;
Or unto governors, as unto them that are SENT BY HIM for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well". (1Pt 2)

Right. So since that government sanctions abortion, you shouldn't have a problem with the law.[emoji57]

Here it is again....
You still never answered....Do you want there to be no governmental laws against murder or rape which can remove these offenders from freely walking among us?
Every time you deflect you show you cannot defend your position....

Here it is again since you're having a hard time with it. The government can make whatever laws it wants.

So is God a liar and everything isn't permissible? Every time you deflect you show you cannot defend your position.


Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

 

[Don]

And I'll say again, we weren't talking about murder, but about abortion and laws taking away the choice.

So abortion isn't murder?

 

[Zaac]

So abortion isn't murder?

You've got a reading problem too I see.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

 

[Don]

You've got a reading problem too I see.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

You're the one that made the distinction when you said you and steaver weren't talking about murder, but about abortion.

It's a simple question: is abortion murder?

But you won't answer it, will you? Because if it is, then steaver is correct in some of the things he's said to/about you; and your pride won't allow you to be wrong.

And if you say it isn't murder, well, then, there's a whole new bucket of worms.

 

[Zaac]

You're the one that made the distinction when you said you and steaver weren't talking about murder, but about abortion.

It's a simple question: is abortion murder?

But you won't answer it, will you? Because if it is, then steaver is correct in some of the things he's said to/about you; and your pride won't allow you to be wrong.

And if you say it isn't murder, well, then, there's a whole new bucket of worms.

I said what I said. If you're not bright enough to understand it, tough. So save your little act for someone else.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

 

[Don]

I said what I said.

I know. I quoted it.

If you're not bright enough to understand it, tough.

It's understood perfectly clear. You inadvertently made a distinction between abortion and murder.

So save your little act for someone else.

What act? The one where I predicted that you wouldn't answer the question, and bingo--you're not answering it?

 

[Zaac]

I know. I quoted it.

It's understood perfectly clear. You inadvertently made a distinction between abortion and murder.

What act? The one where I predicted that you wouldn't answer the question, and bingo--you're not answering it?

The one where it takes you ten days to realize that I see through you and never give you an answer because I know your motives.

So back to the IGNORE file with ya.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

 

[Don]

The one where it takes you ten days to realize that I see through you and never give you an answer because I know your motives.

So back to the IGNORE file with ya.

And there you have it. Why is it that when I attack Zaac's arguments, he doesn't argue the points, but puts me on ignore?

 

[Alcott]

We weren't talking about murder. We were talking about abortion laws and taking away the CHOICE of being able to get an abortion.

Yes or No: is abortion murder?

Nope. You're still advocating the taking away of the choice and attempting to use punishment as the deterrent. That's man's way. That is NOT God's way.

Did Jesus oppose "God's way" when he made a whip and drove the merchants out of the temple?

You never answered. Do you think God is a liar? Did He not say that all things were permissible?

God said "You shall not...[murder, steal, commit adultery...] That's quite a fork of a tongue to say 'all things are permissible' but "you shall not..."

As I said, the government can make whatever laws they want.

Like everyone will attend the nearest Catholic church or be fined?

 

[Zaac]

Yes or No: is abortion murder?

Yes or No: were we taking about murder or the laws that take away choice?

Did Jesus oppose "God's way" when he made a whip and drove the merchants out of the temple?

That's just a dumb question. How does Jesus oppose something He did?[emoji57]

God said "You shall not...[murder, steal, commit adultery...] That's quite a fork of a tongue to say 'all things are permissible' but "you shall not..."

Y'all cannot all be this collectively dense. So you're calling God a liar and that He didn't really mean you can make the CHOICE to do whatever you



Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

 

[Don]

Yes or No: were we taking about murder or the laws that take away choice?

Well, that just compounds the stupidity of not answering the question. Should we have a law that takes away the choice of committing murder?

Abortion is an example of one of those laws that makes committing murder--provided you agree that abortion is the intentional killing of an unborn human being--legal (lawful) and exemplifies the concept of "all things are lawful, but not all things are beneficial." If Zaac would just say "yes, abortion is murder," then he could use this as support for his position. Unfortunately, he would also have to answer the question about whether we should overturn the laws prohibiting murder, which take away that "choice," which would make murder lawful but not beneficial.

And thus, I circle back to my earlier post about "do both." Enact laws for those whose hearts are hardened, while preaching the Word so that hearts may be changed.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/94/False_Dilemma

 

[Alcott]

Yes or No: were we taking about murder or the laws that take away choice?

Yes.

Y'all cannot all be this collectively dense. So you're calling God a liar and that He didn't really mean you can make the CHOICE to do whatever you

We can make the choice to slit the throats of 100 people. yet he said "you shall not kill." Are you giving your kid a "choice" if you say "you can stay out all night, but I'll put stripes all over you with my bullwhip if you do"?

 

[Zaac]

We can make the choice to slit the throats of 100 people. yet he said "you shall not kill."

Did I say any different?

 

[steaver]

Right. So since that government sanctions abortion, you shouldn't have a problem with the law.

I have a problem with any governmental law which opposes God's Law. It is obvious from this discussion you do not. Just like the Corinthians, you argue for liberty to make your own choices WITHOUT consequences of any laws, even if those choices are sin against the very Law of God which you declare you have permission from God to violate. This is Paul's argument AGAINST the Corinthians who wanted lawlessness. You are twisting Paul's words (God's words) into a license to sin. Paul covers this in several of his letters.

I cannot help you with this anymore than I have already tried. It will be between you and the Lord now. I pray you will find compassion for those being slaughtered in the womb, stand up for righteousness and reject lawlessness which opposes God's Law. Pray you are blessed!

 

[Don]

I have a problem with any governmental law which opposes God's Law. It is obvious from this discussion you do not. Just like the Corinthians, you argue for liberty to make your own choices WITHOUT consequences of any laws, even if those choices are sin against the very Law of God which you declare you have permission from God to violate. This is Paul's argument AGAINST the Corinthians who wanted lawlessness. You are twisting Paul's words (God's words) into a license to sin. Paul covers this in several of his letters.

I cannot help you with this anymore than I have already tried. It will be between you and the Lord now. I pray you will find compassion for those being slaughtered in the womb, stand up for righteousness and reject lawlessness which opposes God's Law. Pray you are blessed!

Actually, that's not what Zaac has done at all. Zaac has not advocated "without consequences"; what he's said is to place emphasis on God's law, rather than man's. God's law, without doubt, has consequences.

You brought up murder as an example; anyone can choose to commit murder. We see that daily. Everyone knows that being found guilty of murder with regard to man-made laws results in long-term prison or the death penalty. Being found guilty of murder (sin) with regards to God's laws results in spiritual death.

Where Zaac gets confusing is his condemnation of others for placing equal (or in some cases, more) emphasis on man's laws. As I've stated in previous posts, he's guilty of an either-or fallacy by creating a premise that you're ignoring God's laws and placing man's laws higher than God's; when in reality, you're trying to say that man's laws reflect God's (or should), especially in the case of murder.

 

[steaver]

Actually, that's not what Zaac has done at all. Zaac has not advocated "without consequences";

I disagree. ALL laws come with consequences. No consequence, no law. One does not exist without the other. Zaac advocates for no governmental laws which is advocating for no governmental consequences.

 

[Zaac]

I have a problem with any governmental law which opposes God's Law.

That is why I said Christians shouldn't be advocating for taking away the choice that God says everyone has. Make disciples not laws. [emoji106]

Let man's government do what they do. You advocate God's way.


Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk