Thanks Bob

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mystery

New member
Right but now God has turned to the Gentiles and made salvation open to all men equally, and men no longer have to become proselyte Jews to get saved. This does nothing to disprove the previous Bible verses already quoted Mystery my friend.... :think:
Except that the Gentiles never had the Law that God gave to the Jews, and they do not have it now. The law that leads the Gentiles to Christ is the Law written on their hearts.

"For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness, and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them."
 

PKevman

New member
Except that the Gentiles never had the Law that God gave to the Jews, and they do not have it now. The law that leads the Gentiles to Christ is the Law written on their hearts.

"For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness, and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them."

I don't think we're in disagreement on this subject then. Because I agree with what you said. So why say only Israel had the Law? That isn't true, based on your own argument above. God wrote the first two tiers of Law on men's hearts, so in essence EVERYONE has the law. The symbolic law given to Israel is irrelevant in this day and age.
 

elected4ever

New member
We already have the disaster you speak of from a federal "mandate", not the States. Assumptions that the States would handle it any worse than the federal government already has, are unfounded, unconstitutional and inconsistent with the arguments being presented against States dealing with it like any other form of murder or violent crime. At least a dozen states would likely outlaw abortion as soon as possible upon passage of the Sanctity of Life Act removing Supreme Court jurisdiction. How would this be worse than the federal ban in all states that exist now? The Supreme Court has proven it's lack of trustworthiness, willingness and thus it's ineffectiveness in this regard.
No that is where you are wrong. Row v Wade is bad law but it is constitutional law. Constitutional law does not proport to be bad or good, just law.

In the 18th and 19th century it was the common belief that the baby in the womb was apart of the mothers body. Today you will not find many that believe such a thing. The question is, Should the constitution afford the same protections of due process to the unborn as the born? I believe it should. Had you not rather that the courts start from a position of individual life of the unborn child than to recognize only the mother as the decision maker of that life? As the constitution stands today it is no more wrong, constitutionally, to abort a baby than for the mother to get liposuction. I think that is wrong and no state or individual should have a choice to take an unborn life without due process.
 

elected4ever

New member
I don't think we're in disagreement on this subject then. Because I agree with what you said. So why say only Israel had the Law? That isn't true, based on your own argument above. God wrote the first two tiers of Law on men's hearts, so in essence EVERYONE has the law. The symbolic law given to Israel is irrelevant in this day and age.
PK, you might consider this. When Adam ate the fruit, man became recipient of the knowledge of both good and evil. Knowing the good as will as knowing the evil became an intrinsic value of the psych of man. To him who knoweth to do good and doeth it not. to him it is sin." The Holy Spirit just speaks to that part of the mind that man knows is good and is right. When the Holy Spirit does that we recognize that we have not done the good and our sin becomes manifest. It does not take the Mosaic law to do this.
 

PatriotBeliever

New member
And?

And? You're not able to keep track of your own conversation any longer?

OK. So we shouldn't execute murderers either? This is about the elements of the law that God wants all people to live by, not the ones He made only for Israel.

I never said anything about not executing murderers, don't put words in my mouth please. Differentiate what part of the Bible applies to Christians today then. You illustrate my point again. You are picking and choosing what scripture applies and how it applies, I am doing the same to make the point, a few pages back in the thread of course.

P.S.
That verse is not about a small child. It's about an adult son. Why else would it mention being a drunkard?

Maybe. You presume an assumptive "case law" interpretation either way. The point is, it is part of the same law. Even the killing of "adult" sons who are stubborn, rebellious, "gluttons" or "drunkards" would require the stoning of most of the males in most western civilizations, especially America. Again this illustrates the lunacy of an Imperial America executing everyone that the Levitical and Mosaic laws require, as rebellion, drunkeness, stubbornness, and gluttony are far more common "crimes" than that of homosexuality.


Have you prayed about this?

Yes


If we followed God, it would not need changed, and it would not be changed.

And there would be no need for any human government at all.


Are you really this stupid? No one here is saying that these things must happen, or that everyone must be converted. No one is suggesting that anyone is converted by force. We are not proposing laws that would say everyone had to be of a certain belief system.

Mystery and yourself have taken this position. Maybe you do not realize what Dominion Theology and theonomy are. Use Google or some other search engine and do some study. Particularly, Mystery sounds very much like they are of the extreme dominion theology/theonomy mindset. If you and they are not then you would not take the position that human government and institutions are for the forceful enforcement of Mosaic and Levitical laws by human authorities, as you have at least implied, unrestricted by constituents, constitutions or otherwise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sopwith21 View Post
Then how do you delegate that right to your elected representative?
Are you serious?! I am not the one who delegates authority to anyone! No civilian is!You do not understand the system of government that God has place you in then The authority of governing officials should not come from their constituents!You seriously do not understand the system of government that God has place you. We believe, in America (maybe you are from another country, I had not thought of the) that God ordained our system of government which goes like this... sovereign God - sovereign man - representative republic answerable to the law (constitution) that was based on God's law to help guard against imperfect man abusing the authority God has ordained through we the people. Reference the founding documents and a whole bunch of American history. God is the one who has deemed that there should be governments, and He has delegated authority (in America, that would be the constitution between the government and the governed) to them! Our country is ignoring the authority He has delegated, and completely overstepping it. (I agree and the ignoring starts with those in positions of power who have ignored not only the Bible but the Constitution... I know it's note prudent to bring up the Constitution again.)

Quote:
The purpose of government is to make the world the way God wants it, and kill anyone who gets in the way?
Why else would god delegate authority to governments? This is a extreme Dominionist opinion


FYI for all those reading this: the bold part is a complete lie.

...that all being said, to make this relevant to the thread, Ron Paul is neither a Dominion Theology-ist nor a secularist. He is a pro-life christian than happens to be able to back up his opinion about abortion being wrong with his OB-GYN background and 4000 delivered babies.
 

elected4ever

New member
...that all being said, to make this relevant to the thread, Ron Paul is neither a Dominion Theology-ist nor a secularist. He is a pro-life christian than happens to be able to back up his opinion about abortion being wrong with his OB-GYN background and 4000 delivered babies.
the problem is that the law that has been presented will not stand constitutional muster.
 

PatriotBeliever

New member
DrBrumley, it's humbling to read your OP.

Thanks, and may God bless you.

-Bob

p.s. And for those Ron Paul supporters who deny that he is pro-choice state-by-state, there is nothing one can do for them if they won't read his bills and interviews and see that is his open and blatant position, except point out their hypocrisy.

And for those Ron Paul supporters who admit he is pro-choice state-by-state, and say that the Constitution allows the states to kill the unborn, there is nothing one can do for such "constitutionalists" who ignore the federal constitution's 5th and 14th amendments' guarantee of the right to life, except point out their hypocrisy.

And for those Ron Paul supporters who admit he is pro-choice state by state, and accept apathy in our federal government regarding the systematic slaughter of the innocent, there is nothing one can do for them except expose their frustration and immaturity.

-Bob Enyart
Denver Bible Church & KGOV.com

Bob, welcome to the discussion again. Has your staff been successful in securing an interview/debate for you with Ron Paul yet?

You are simply incorrect about Ron Paul supporters denying Ron Paul being "pro abortion" state by state. I have posted numerous links to mountains of sources on several blogs and threads proving that Ron Paul is unquestionably pro-life, to include the very legislation and interviews that you use to try and "interpret" his words and bills to say the opposite of what they plainly state.

He has the only legislation introduced that would effect legalized abortion right now (I understand your problem with the text of the bill, see below...). I understand your argument but I believe you are simply wrong. And the masses of people who will hear you state that Ron Paul is pro abortion will never check out why you use the wording you do.

I have explained to many folks since I first saw your "position" and all the statements you have made.

You state:
Ron Paul is pro abortion
Ron Paul is a secular humanist (see the bottom of this reply)

Best I can tell your biggest gripe, besides the fact that Ron Paul has been associated with the Libertarian Party - with which he has important differing views that you refuse to acknowledge, is that he agrees with the Constitution's requirement to relegate anything not expressly listed in it to the States. For this you label the one federal official that is openly the most anti-abortion member in deed, "pro abortion".

Your next big gripe from what I can see is that the bills H.R. 2597 and H.R. 300 both seek to limit the Supreme Court's jurisdiction.

First, besides a constitutional amendment, which Ron Paul has stated he is at least "o.k." with, the Constitution says what it says. States handle similar crimes already. The founders tried to prevent Judicial tyranny like Roe rulings. My interpretation of the founding documents is that a fetus was protected already. Federal courts have taken it upon themselves to redefine it.

The adding of a "right" to abortion through fiat federal "law" is what we have currently. You suggest that the answer to Roe v. Wade is to be found at the federal level somehow. I have dealt with the constitutional amendment idea early in this thread because most people have no idea how difficult and unlikely it is to be done. Not only is a constitutional amendment a long and difficult process, it relies on the States approval at several points throughout the process, regardless of which of the two amendment processes are pursued. One of those processes requires the States to even initiate the amendment. So the very entities you criticize Paul's legislation for favoring are the same entities required for any federal solution.

To then favor the Supreme Court over the limitation of it in regard to hearing abortion cases is illogical. Why is abortion legal in America today and why can states not outlaw it currently? The Supreme Court's fiat legislating through Roe v. Wade, Doe v. Bolton and all the subsequent confirming court opinions since. Your criticism of H.R. 2597 and H.R. 300 ignore the problem, the Supreme Court's exercising of authority they did not have in the first place. Those bills would at least move us from the current nationwide legal abortion mandate to the ability for the states to ban it individually without fear of the Supreme Court stepping right back in and reversing the rulings that would surely follow the passage of any State ban of abortion.

As for Ron Paul's guilt by association with the Libertarian Party read:Being Pro-Life Is Necessary to Defend Liberty by Ron Paul - http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=912

As for Ron Paul being pro-abortion "state by state" read:
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr060403b.htm
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2005/tst032805.htm
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2001/tst043001.htm

Ron Paul's speach at the National Right To Life watch:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXZpuIXEzWk
Interview on abortion with CBN's David Brody: http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/254048.aspx

Since Bob will likely link to this interview, and it is very good, watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGGOiv7sA4w


As for Bob's statement that Ron Paul is a secular humanist, I'll paste what I posted at truthtalklive.com's blog:
Alright, so Bob Enyart did actually say that Ron Paul is a Secular Humanist. I think most secularists would disagree. I will let Paul’s own words show what he thinks of secular humanism in America.

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.

Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few.

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage.

In case that’s not enough, Ron Paul condemned a 9th Circuit Court ruling that the addition of the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional. Here’s Paul’s condemnation:

The judges who made this unfortunate ruling simply do not understand the First amendment,” Paul stated. “It does not bar religious expression in public settings or anywhere else. In fact, it expressly prohibits federal interference in the free expression of religion. Far from mandating strict secularism in schools, it instead bars the federal government from prohibiting the Pledge of Allegiance, school prayer, or any other religious expression. The politicians and judges pushing the removal of religion from public life are violating the First amendment, not upholding it.”

“The tired assertion of a separation of church and state has no historical or constitutional basis,” Paul continued. “Neither the language of the Constitution itself nor the legislative history reveals any mention of such separation. In fact, the authors of the First amendment- Fisher Ames and Elbridge Gerry- and the rest of the founders routinely referred to “Almighty God” in our founding documents. It is only in the last 50 years that the federal courts have perverted the meaning of the amendment and sought to unlawfully restrict religious expression. We cannot continue to permit our Constitution and our rich religious institutions to be degraded by profound misinterpretations of the Bill of Rights.”

Maybe that’s why the Secular Coalition for America gives Ron Paul a 20% rating.

Bob, your secular humanist label of Ron Paul is completely unmerited.

For more on this from athiest/agnostic defender Austin Cline go here:
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/259335.htm

I'm sorry, but for anyone willing to look at the source information, Ron Paul is extremely pro-life with thirty years and legislation to back up the claim.
For anyone requiring an official statement of faith, look here:http://www.covenantnews.com/ronpaul070721.htm
 

PatriotBeliever

New member
the problem is that the law that has been presented will not stand constitutional muster.

I'm sorry your quote of mine didn't have any law in it but I guess you mean H.R. 2597 and H.R. 300? How so? Check into the Congresses authority over Supreme Court rulings and the lesser courts. They are not completely separate nor equal branches.
 

elected4ever

New member
I'm sorry your quote of mine didn't have any law in it but I guess you mean H.R. 2597 and H.R. 300? How so? Check into the Congresses authority over Supreme Court rulings and the lesser courts. They are not completely separate nor equal branches.
Some liberal congressman or senator will walk that thing over to the district court and file an injunction to stop it and from there to the Supreme Court where it will be declared Unconstitutional. Please understand that this is an election gimmick to garner votes. I am not saying that Ron Paul does not believe what he wrote but the likely hood of it becoming law is 0 I think.
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
...that all being said, to make this relevant to the thread, Ron Paul is neither a Dominion Theology-ist nor a secularist. He is a pro-life christian than happens to be able to back up his opinion about abortion being wrong with his OB-GYN background and 4000 delivered babies.
Learn to use the quote function properly. I can't even respond to most of your responses to me, because you put them in the quote box. Separate my quotes from your responses in separate quote boxes, so we can have a conversation on this.

Secondly, I'm not a dominion theologian either. So why don't you try being honest, instead of lying about those who disagree with you, in a sad attempt to discredit them.

Also, Ron Paul's plan to make abortion a states issue will result in some states allowing abortion, if not most or all, and disallow the federal government [the President] from making them stop, or prosecuting them for breaking the law he proposes that states life begins at conception. So then he, if he were President, would have a country where abortion is legal. And he would be powerless to do anything about it. That doesn't sound very pro-life to me.
 

elected4ever

New member
That is incorrect. God wrote the first two tiers of law: Law to God, and Law to men, on the hearts of mankind. So even in remote tribes, they know intrinsically that it is wrong to murder and it is wrong to commit adultery.
That is Dominion Theology. We all get caught up in it at some point.
 

PatriotBeliever

New member
Please understand that this is an election gimmick to garner votes. I am not saying that Ron Paul does not believe what he wrote but the likely hood of it becoming law is 0 I think.

He has introduced nearly identical bills before.
Likelihood of passage has never been a factor for Dr. "No". But so far, you are correct, much of his legislation gets little attention. As president hopefully, one of the few who do co-sponsor his legislation, there are a few, could introduce similar bills and he could draw attention and support with the "bully pulpit"
 

PatriotBeliever

New member
Learn to use the quote function properly. I can't even respond to most of your responses to me, because you put them in the quote box. Separate my quotes from your responses in separate quote boxes, so we can have a conversation on this.

Secondly, I'm not a dominion theologian either. So why don't you try being honest, instead of lying about those who disagree with you, in a sad attempt to discredit them.

Also, Ron Paul's plan to make abortion a states issue will result in some states allowing abortion, if not most or all, and disallow the federal government [the President] from making them stop, or prosecuting them for breaking the law he proposes that states life begins at conception. So then he, if he were President, would have a country where abortion is legal. And he would be powerless to do anything about it. That doesn't sound very pro-life to me.

Actually it was very clear with red answers for all to see.

And I was very specific as to why your position matches Dominion Theology, correctly utilizing the quote feature to point out your former statement that led me to that conclusion.

As for your comment about Ron Paul's plan, as it stands now, the President has no authority to stop any of the thousands of abortions going on right now, as you assume above. Not to mention the president has no constitutional authority to do so either. What if Hillary becomes President? Do you think she (or Giuliani) would wield such power correctly? I think they would wield it in the opposite, ignoring any new "power" that you speak of.

You are defending the Supreme Court's ability to rule justly on abortion? As I spelled out in detail (more than a few times throughout this thread.) you fear the States doing something that the federal government has already done, so they are the solution? And you then propose that the Supreme Court, the very institution that stepped out of it's authority and legalized abortion, will be the institution to stop any States that might legalize it after they are free to outlaw it? This is double think and makes no sense.

It is imperative that the jurisdiction be removed from the Supreme Court to overturn any state outlawing abortion. H.R. 2597 does this.
 
Last edited:

elected4ever

New member
The right to life is not something that should be left to the states to decide. The constitution already defends the right to life for the born and I wont to extend the right to life to the unborn also. No legislative act can accomplish that.
 

PatriotBeliever

New member
The right to life is not something that should be left to the states to decide. The constitution already defends the right to life for the born and I wont to extend the right to life to the unborn also. No legislative act can accomplish that.

You are correct. However the States should be able to protect that right to life. They currently cannot. The Sanctity of Life Act would accomplish that.
 

S†ephen

New member
Great, thanks for your honesty! Let me turn you to some Scriptures:

Jesus comanded His disciples to go to all the nations and to "teach them all things that I have commanded you" (matt 28:20):

Further, Jesus said that until Heaven and earth pass away, the Law will not completely pass away (see Matthew 5:18-19):

For believers, Christ is the end of the Law:

4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

~Stephen
Until a person receives Christ, they are still under law! What law? Law to God and law to others. God wrote THESE laws on the hearts of mankind. (See Romans chapters 1&2)


The Law has two main purposes:

Purpose#1. It is a deterrent and restrains evil men from committing evil acts.

God promised through Moses and Solomon that IF His criminal law is enacted swiftly, it would act as a deterrent to crime:

12 Now the man who acts presumptuously and will not heed the priest who stands to minister there before the LORD your God, or the judge, that man shall die. So you shall put away the evil from Israel. 13 And all the people shall hear and fear, and no longer act presumptuously. (Deut 17:12-13)

I encourage you to think about Death Row and how long people sit on death row in our country. Now read this verse:

11 Because the sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil.


Purpose #2: It points sinners to their need for forgivenness from a holy and righteous God. See Galatians 3:24-25; Romans 3:19;1 Timothy 1:8-10;

Psalm 19:7a

7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul;

1 Timothy 1:8-9a says:

8 But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, 9 knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate

Mr. Kevin,

Thanks for the references. I definitely intend to make this a major study project. However, I don't understand how this pertains to Satan's ownership of government.

I also don't understand your basis for saying that Satan only has partial ownership of government. The Bible states very clearly at some points that Satan has free reign over certain things. God didn't tell Satan (during His temptation) that he only had partial ownership. He didn't deny his ownership at all. :banned:

Also, having read Sopwith's 21's post I wouldn't say he went too far. I only say this because Mr. Enyart didn't hesitate to call those who disagreed with him immature hypocrites.:dizzy:

~S†ephen
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Actually it was very clear with red answers for all to see.
And when I clicked the quote button your responses were not in my text box, because the stuff inside the quote box in one post does not show up in a quote response.

And I was very specific as to why your position matches Dominion Theology, correctly utilizing the quote feature to point out your former statement that led me to that conclusion.
You're lying again. Or is that still?

As for your comment about Ron Paul's plan, as it stands now, the President has no authority to stop any of the thousands of abortions going on right now, as you assume above. Not to mention the president has no constitutional authority to do so either. What if Hillary becomes President? Do you think she (or Giuliani) would wield such power correctly? I think they would wield it in the opposite, ignoring any new "power" that you speak of.
And if Alan Keyes became President, and the law forbidding abortion nationally was passed, he would have the power to enforce that law, and he would enforce it.

You are defending the Supreme Court's ability to rule justly on abortion? As I spelled out in detail (more than a few times throughout this thread.) you fear the States doing something that the federal government has already done, so they are the solution? And you then propose that the Supreme Court, the very institution that stepped out of it's authority and legalized abortion, will be the institution to stop any States that might legalize it after they are free to outlaw it? This is double think and makes no sense.
:bang:

The Supreme Court will not be able to stop any state that does not outlaw abortion, under Ron Paul's plan. But under Alan Keyes we will see pro-life Justices appointed to the SCotUS, and a bill banning all abortion, nationally, will be put into motion.

It is imperative that the jurisdiction be removed from the Supreme Court to overturn any state outlawing abortion. H.R. 2597 does this.
And what about those states that don't outlaw it? What should be done then?
 

PatriotBeliever

New member
And if Alan Keyes became President, and the law forbidding abortion nationally was passed, he would have the power to enforce that law, and he would enforce it.
There is no such law in the pipeline aside from H.R. 2597.

The Supreme Court will not be able to stop any state that does not outlaw abortion, under Ron Paul's plan. But under Alan Keyes we will see pro-life Justices appointed to the SCotUS, and a bill banning all abortion, nationally, will be put into motion.
You are incorrect again
H.R. 2597 Sec 2.(b.)(2.)
the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State.
and this is in the findings and declaration of the bill prior to the restricting of the courts.

And what about those states that don't outlaw it? What should be done then?
They need the ability to outlaw it again first. You are banking on a guess that any states would turn around and legalize abortion. You are also guessing that the federal government will one day come to the point that it will recognize the right of the unborn and then some president, Giuliani, H. Clinton, Keyes, Paul or whomever will enforce it. If we ever get there I believe Paul and Keyes would use that authority (actually, if he had that kind of authority I feel confident Paul would based on 30 years of statements and legislation. Keyes has nowhere near the amount of readily available recorded history for me to feel as good about, although he talks right and has pledged it.) Until then the Supreme Court's decision must be legislatively "vetoed" via H.R. 2597 type law. It will save unborn babies lives sooner than later and you can still wait for the federal government to change it's mind as you are trusting it to do. Besides after a bill like H.R. 2597 at least I would have states I could chose to move to if mine were to decide to legalize abortion.
 
Last edited:

PatriotBeliever

New member
But under Alan Keyes we will see pro-life Justices appointed to the SCotUS, and a bill banning all abortion, nationally, will be put into motion.
Forgot to address this and it is important to point out. We already have "pro-life Justices" and even Bob Enyart has pointed out that these judges are willing to decide abortion wrong again. As for a bill banning abortion that Keyes could enforce, we can only hope and pressure the Representatives but there has been no legislative will outside of Ron Paul's bills and the supporters of them to do anything. The Partial Birth Abortion Ban, as Bob has correctly pointed out, definitely does not count.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top