Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

TILLER SUSPECT IN CUSTODY (KAKE Ch10 Wichita)
KAKE News ^ | 5/31/09

Posted on 05/31/2009 12:15:41 PM PDT by Crazieman

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 401-450451-500501-550551-581 last
To: wmfights

“In the case of Roeder the only reason I can see that he shouldn’t have done what he did is anarchy will lead to even more innocents being killed.”

That’s a pretty huge reason...that and ceding the moral high ground of pro-life to the pro-death/pro-abort crowd.


551 posted on 06/03/2009 2:35:03 PM PDT by SeattleBruce (God, Family, Country and the Tea Party! Take America Back! [I hate the BIGOTS in the enemedia.])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 549 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

“Not only would it be best (IMHO) for you to “lose” the “T-word”; but I think it ill-advised to use the “V-word.
++++++++++++++

LOL, you’d basically really like it if I wouldn’t speak...:)


552 posted on 06/03/2009 2:36:31 PM PDT by SeattleBruce (God, Family, Country and the Tea Party! Take America Back! [I hate the BIGOTS in the enemedia.])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 548 | View Replies]

To: SeattleBruce; xzins; Alamo-Girl; wmfights; P-Marlowe; metmom; hosepipe; YHAOS
I think one of the key differentials between Roeder’s act and the Patriots of the 1775 era was that there was a societal sanctioning of the Patriots declaration of war.

Sanctioning by whom? The Sons of Liberty probably had the sympathies of something less than 20 percent of the total population in 1775. "While the evils were sufferable," going to war with the Mother Country was unthinkable by the vast majority of Colonials. But the Sons of Liberty were inspired by the Fire of Liberty; and so managed to start a war, and then (somehow) managed to win it — arguably with some highly timely divine interventions along the way....

You want to talk about "just war?" Big topic!!! Can we narrow it down to what the Framers thought would constitute a "just war?"

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. [emphasis added]

Not for nothing did Thomas Jefferson say, "The Tree of Liberty is watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

A question SeattleBruce: Do you think the Sons of Liberty, the original American Patriots, were "terrorists?" Or "vigilantes?"

553 posted on 06/03/2009 2:51:29 PM PDT by betty boop (Tyranny is always whimsical. — Mark Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 543 | View Replies]

To: SeattleBruce
LOL, you’d basically really like it if I wouldn’t speak...:)

Not so, SeattleBruce. I'd like only that you would speak prudently. If someone wants to pour gasoline all over this fire, let it be some pro-abort on the other side, not one of our own.

554 posted on 06/03/2009 2:54:25 PM PDT by betty boop (Tyranny is always whimsical. — Mark Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 552 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

“I’d like only that you would speak prudently.”

I’d say Mr. Roeder did a much more effective job of pouring gasoline and lighting this fire than anything I’ve ever said or done.

Yes, I will attempt to speak prudently, as I’m sure will you...we’re both commanded to do that! (Eph. 4:29)


555 posted on 06/03/2009 3:10:05 PM PDT by SeattleBruce (God, Family, Country and the Tea Party! Take America Back! [I hate the BIGOTS in the enemedia.])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 554 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

“Do you think the Sons of Liberty, the original American Patriots, were “terrorists?” Or “vigilantes?”

Now, now - you just used the ‘t’ and the ‘v’ word after making them strictly off limits to me...lol...:)
+++++++++++++++++++

“The Sons of Liberty probably had the sympathies of something less than 20 percent of the total population in 1775.”

That’s way, way more than Roeder ever had. Name one local or national pro-life leader that publicly supports what Roeder did.
++++++++++++++++++

“it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.”

The very fact that these recognized colonial leaders deliberated, wrote and agitated to stir up sympathies, etc., leads us to ask about this greatly stretched analogy - what along these lines could Roeder have claimed to do?

*Was he a leader of a movement?
*As such did he stir up sympathies toward his take on the cause?
*Did he have reason to suspect that a much broader swath of the pro-life masses would join with him in his just fight, and be willing to pick up arms and lay down their lives for it?

None of this rings true with Roeder, and as I told xzins, this is where that analogy breaks down completely.

No, the Patriots weren’t ‘Ts’ or ‘Vs’ in that they were deliberately sanctioned by a wide swath of the American public, which while perhaps not a majority at first, grew to encompass a victory over the British crown.


556 posted on 06/03/2009 3:27:04 PM PDT by SeattleBruce (God, Family, Country and the Tea Party! Take America Back! [I hate the BIGOTS in the enemedia.])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 553 | View Replies]

To: SeattleBruce; Alamo-Girl; wmfights; P-Marlowe; metmom; YHAOS; hosepipe
*Was he a leader of a movement?
*As such did he stir up sympathies toward his take on the cause?
*Did he have reason to suspect that a much broader swath of the pro-life masses would join with him in his just fight, and be willing to pick up arms and lay down their lives for it?

No, no, and no.

Very little is known of him — he's being kept under very tight wraps. Yet from what little is known, one surmises that Roeder is a very private man who ended up doing a very public thing. One senses he was acting out of conscience, imagining that he alone would pay the inevitable price. And for whatever reason, he was willing to bear that price. Whatever it is to be.

This strikes me as being something very like what the Framers had in mind when they pledged "their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor" to the cause of Liberty. Only Roeder evidently has staked his ground on Life.

557 posted on 06/03/2009 6:22:47 PM PDT by betty boop (Tyranny is always whimsical. — Mark Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 556 | View Replies]

To: SeattleBruce; Alamo-Girl; wmfights; P-Marlowe; metmom; YHAOS; hosepipe; betty boop; xzins
I also maintain, that on balance, what he and the other vigilantes did harms the pro-life movement more than helps in the long term,

Actually in the case of late term abortions, I do not believe that to be true. Tiller's death was a targeted assassination of a man who was illegally performing late term abortions.

If anything this incident will bring a lot of attention to the practice of late term abortions and the fact of the matter is that anyone who actually sees the remains of a late term aborted baby cannot pretend in their mind that this was not the premeditated murder of a live baby.

Americans hate baby killers and by and large I suspect that Americans secretly admire people who kill baby killers. I think that this incident will bring a lot of attention to the horrors of what Tiller was doing in Wichita with the tacit approval of the State of Kansas (which had laws specifically protecting the lives of viable babies in the womb). Since the state had abrogated it's lawful duty to stop Tiller from performing illegal abortions and killing viable infants, I believe this justifies "taking the law into your own hands."

What had happened in Kansas was that the laws protected the unborn, but the people in charge of enforcing those laws had deliberately looked the other way (mostly because Tiller had been greasing the palms of those charged with executing the laws that Tiller so brazenly had violated.

I think it is wrong to call Roeder a "Terrorist" (the "T" word).

Roeder was not a terrorist, he was an assassin. There is a monumental difference. What he did was not a terrorist act, it was an assassination. No collateral damage was anticipated or intended and none occurred. The purpose was not to terrorize anyone. It would appear that it was to end a practice that the Governor of the State of Kansas had categorically refused to end.

Frankly Kathleen Sebelius bears most of the responsibility for this incident. She took blood money from Tiller in exchange for giving him freedom from prosecution for illegally killing viable human fetuses.

Ultimately when the government fails in its duty to enforce the law or to secure the blessings of liberty to our posterity, then the people have a right and a duty to "Take the law into their own hands".

The more I think about this case, the more I find myself having a lot of sympathy for Roeder.

558 posted on 06/03/2009 7:18:19 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 542 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; P-Marlowe
If I were a juror, certainly I'd want to know "why" Mr. Roeder "did it."

If I could "reform" the courts, high on my list would be the ability of the jurors to submit their own questions for the witnesses.

Thank you for all of your insights, dearest sister in Christ!

559 posted on 06/03/2009 9:00:23 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 536 | View Replies]

To: xzins
I strongly agree there is no moral equivalence between the two.

Thank you for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!

560 posted on 06/03/2009 9:08:01 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 537 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
I think the root cause of the present tyranny boils down to: By our loss of faith, we have ceased being a people under God, and so must become a people under man.

Indeed.

Thank you oh so very much for your wonderful essay-post, dearest sister in Christ!

561 posted on 06/03/2009 9:11:03 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 539 | View Replies]

To: xzins; betty boop; SeattleBruce; P-Marlowe; wmfights
I keep thinking about Tiller having to face each and every one of those 60,000 babies. Jeepers...

And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me. But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and [that] he were drowned in the depth of the sea. - Matthew 18:5-6

For our God [is] a consuming fire. - Hebrews 12:9

Thank you so very much for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!

562 posted on 06/03/2009 9:24:58 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 541 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Thank you so very much for your insights on the Founding Fathers, dearest sister in Christ!

When they pledged "their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor" they were dead serious. All was forfeit for the greater cause.

563 posted on 06/03/2009 9:32:17 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 557 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
Thank you oh so very much for your insights, dear brother in Christ!

Americans hate baby killers and by and large I suspect that Americans secretly admire people who kill baby killers.

Even hardened criminals deplore baby killers and child molesters. In prison, they have a very short life expectancy.

564 posted on 06/03/2009 9:36:16 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 558 | View Replies]

To: SeattleBruce
He intended to act alone if necessary...

So?

He wanted to be, or thought he was, some sort of hero or messiah.

Kinda of typical in an extremist.

He certainly did not seek the counsel of pro-life leaders, even local pro-life leaders who have condemned his action.

Why would he?

If he believed that Tiller was killing innocent babies and the local pro-life groups had been fighting for years to stop him, but had failed, why would he seek their counsel?

I have sympathy for him but in my view, he damaged the pro-life cause more than he (may have) helped by moving ahead without the sanction of his own cause’s leaders, and (righly or wrongly) bringing a blithe, easy accusation from naysayers of hypocrisy to the entire movement.

I've thought about this as well. I don't see how. In the short term we have another day in Kansas where late term abortions are not being performed. In the long term when the left says pro-lifers are so bad because of this act the answer is simple.

Why did you create him?

The left loves to talk root causes. It was their authoritarian oligarchs in the judiciary that stopped a legitimate process to recognize all views.

565 posted on 06/04/2009 8:15:31 AM PDT by wmfights (If you want change support SenateConservatives.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 550 | View Replies]

To: SeattleBruce
That’s a pretty huge reason...that and ceding the moral high ground of pro-life to the pro-death/pro-abort crowd.

That's why you don't see a large number of people jumping on the band wagon.

I think you've lost your way if you think there is anything moral in killing babies. It may have been legal, but that does not make it moral. Part of the reason this issue (abortion) won't go away is in most circumstances it is not moral.

566 posted on 06/04/2009 8:20:09 AM PDT by wmfights (If you want change support SenateConservatives.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 551 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

“One senses he was acting out of conscience, imagining that he alone would pay the inevitable price...

This strikes me as being something very like what the Framers had in mind when they pledged “their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor” to the cause of Liberty. Only Roeder evidently has staked his ground on Life.”
++++++++++++++++

Roeder acted basically alone, or perhaps with the support of a small handful. The Patriots of 1775 acted with a huge swath of support within the populace. The comparison breaks down, which is why I consider what Roeder did vigilantism, although perhaps admirable from a very limited, isolated point of view - meaning he paid an ultimate price to defend babies - but in the process damaging the entire movement strategically, and indeed morally. We need to win this battle by standing on the truth. When we get to the point where we need to pick up arms and risk fortunes like our forebears - we’re going to know it.

Do you think we’re at a point where we need to do that Betty? Are we at a point where we need to pick up arms against a despotic government?


567 posted on 06/06/2009 11:21:47 AM PDT by SeattleBruce (God, Family, Country and the Tea Party! Take America Back! [I hate the BIGOTRY in the enemedia.])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 557 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
“I think it is wrong to call Roeder a “Terrorist” (the “T” word)...Roeder was not a terrorist, he was an assassin. There is a monumental difference. What he did was not a terrorist act, it was an assassination. No collateral damage was anticipated or intended and none occurred. The purpose was not to terrorize anyone. It would appear that it was to end a practice that the Governor of the State of Kansas had categorically refused to end...Frankly Kathleen Sebelius bears most of the responsibility for this incident. She took blood money from Tiller in exchange for giving him freedom from prosecution for illegally killing viable human fetuses.”
****************
I agree with the part about Sebelius - I also like wmfights take on how to address the pro-abort crowd on this matter. ‘Why did you create him?’, he said. That said, the pro-life movement and we pro-lifers *must* know where we stand on this. As much as you can say that this does not harm the movement, assassinating a handful of 3rd trimester abortionists does not stop the bulk of abortions - so in what way does it really advance the movement - vs. advancing one specific item (no more late term abortions in Wichita)? What is next P-Marlowe - shall we advocate the full scale “assassination program” to target all 2nd Trimester abotionists? Why or why not? Will that help our cause, do you suppose?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

“Ultimately when the government fails in its duty to enforce the law or to secure the blessings of liberty to our posterity, then the people have a right and a duty to “Take the law into their own hands”.
*******************

We can talk philosophically/Biblically about this (Acts 5:29 - “Peter and the other apostles replied, ‘We must obey God rather than men!’”....Gamaliel added later in that account: “Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.” Acts 5:38b, 39)

- but have we arrived at such a place? I'll ask you the question I just asked Betty Boop - have we come to a place where we need to take up arms against a tyrannical government?

To some degree, I'm trying to understand the level of support we have for violence, in the cause of defending innocent lives, and what our current understanding and parameters are.

At this point - I support what the Patriots did in 1775 (which involved killing representatives of the British crown (the British army)) - while I don't support Roeder’s act, because no one can clearly explain to me how this helps reduce the mass of abortions, nor helps the pro-life movement generally, and it doesn't have the appropriate pro-life leadership and general support; as such it fails to pass the test of a legitimate act of moral protest that I, or most people in the pro-life movement, nor most Americans can support - despite your interesting notion that most Americans may agree that ‘killing babies is wrong.’

If those advocating violence against abortionists (please, I'm not being specific to people on the board unless it somehow applies to you), or against tyrannical government in general (?), can present their case and persuade a significant portion of Americans to rise up - then we'd have some kind of parallel with the 1775 Patriots. Until then we have an isolated act of violence, which I and most pro-lifers do not support as being helpful.

568 posted on 06/06/2009 12:35:03 PM PDT by SeattleBruce (God, Family, Country and the Tea Party! Take America Back! [I hate the BIGOTRY in the enemedia.])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 558 | View Replies]

To: wmfights

Bruce: “that and ceding the moral high ground of pro-life to the pro-death/pro-abort crowd.”

wmfights: “I think you’ve lost your way if you think there is anything moral in killing babies. It may have been legal, but that does not make it moral. Part of the reason this issue (abortion) won’t go away is in most circumstances it is not moral.”

Bruce: Excellent points. I should be clearer with my above statement: “that and ceding ‘any part of’ the moral high ground ‘away’”.


569 posted on 06/06/2009 12:56:07 PM PDT by SeattleBruce (God, Family, Country and the Tea Party! Take America Back! [I hate the BIGOTRY in the enemedia.])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 566 | View Replies]

To: SeattleBruce; Alamo-Girl; xzins; betty boop; wmfights; Dr. Eckleburg
Thank you for your well thought and and considered reply.

FWIW I have NEVER advocated violence against abortion providers. NEVER. But I have on numerous occasions stated without hesitation my firm belief that Abortion is Murder and that people like Tiller are the worst sort of criminals. So when I express the thought that Abortion is Murder, I have to accept the consequences of my words and I would be the ultimate hypocrite if after calling Abortion murder, I turned around and soundly condemned someone who took those words to heart and sacrificed his own liberty to put an end to a holocaust.

FWIW, I have tried many times and I have never been able to come up with a Biblical justification for the American Revolution. Our founding fathers were biblically under the admonition of Paul to obey those who were in authority over them because the powers that were, were ordained of God. But then every single nation was founded by people who had rebelled or gone to war against other nations to secure their own power.

That being said, I do believe with all my heart that the American Revolution was fully ordained by God and that it was God's assertive will that the United States of America would be founded by the Godly men who acted on slim, if any, biblical grounds to rebel against a tyrannical government and to form a new union which, would ultimately promise to "Secure the blessings of liberty.... to our posterity."

Unfortunately that promise has been broken. Because that promise was broken, do we, as a people now have the right and duty to do all in our power to restore those promises? From a biblical viewpoint, I'd be inclined to say no and to accept the lot that God has dealt us. From a philosophical viewpoint, I would not be willing to lie down while the blessings of Liberty are willy nilly stripped from our posterity.

It is a difficult question.

But when it comes down to brass tacks, the only thing that can be said is:

There have been no late term abortions in Kansas since 5/31/09.

Who do we have to thank for that? If we thank God, then we would have to thank Roeder. Think about that one for a minute.

For me, all I can say is "Thank God there have been no late term abortions in Kansas since 5/31/09."

You may draw any other inference from that statement that you want.

570 posted on 06/06/2009 1:00:01 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 568 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; SeattleBruce; Alamo-Girl; xzins; betty boop; wmfights; Dr. Eckleburg
FWIW, I have tried many times and I have never been able to come up with a Biblical justification for the American Revolution. Our founding fathers were biblically under the admonition of Paul to obey those who were in authority over them because the powers that were, were ordained of God. But then every single nation was founded by people who had rebelled or gone to war against other nations to secure their own power.

I have been going over this a lot the past week, and I think I MIGHT have come up with a justification.

The colonial militias were legally within their rights to muster and store arms and ammunition. However, on April 19, 1775 the British came to seize the supplies of the Massachusetts Militia, this resulted in the Battles of Lexington and Concord.

What is important here is that, to this day, NOBODY can say for certain whether the British or Americans fired the first shot at the Battle of Lexington, therefore the Founding Fathers COULD justify the Revolution as defensive rather than rebellious and they were thus absolved of their obedience to George III. With this justification and the ongoing war against Americans, the Declaration of Independence was warranted.

That being said, I do believe with all my heart that the American Revolution was fully ordained by God and that it was God's assertive will that the United States of America would be founded by the Godly men who acted on slim, if any, biblical grounds to rebel against a tyrannical government and to form a new union which, would ultimately promise to "Secure the blessings of liberty.... to our posterity."

Unfortunately that promise has been broken. Because that promise was broken, do we, as a people now have the right and duty to do all in our power to restore those promises? From a biblical viewpoint, I'd be inclined to say no and to accept the lot that God has dealt us. From a philosophical viewpoint, I would not be willing to lie down while the blessings of Liberty are willy nilly stripped from our posterity.

Here is what I can come up with. With Roe v. Wade the government PERMITS abortion, but it does not MANDATE abortion and I think this is important. I believe there is a difference between a government allowing something to happen and actually doing it.

Here is a portion of the Declaration of Independence that I think is critical to this subject:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The real question must be is the Government actually destructive or is it simply negligent in preventing the destruction? Because I THINK there is probably a crucial difference.

I think it is also important to realize that the United States DID NOT fight the Civil War to end slavery. The United States went to war because the southern states seceded and then started an armed rebellion by firing on Union troops. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation ONLY freed slaves in those states in rebellion, slavery was abolished by a Constitutional amendment, NOT the Civil War.

571 posted on 06/06/2009 1:32:01 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 570 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
I have been going over this a lot the past week, and I think I MIGHT have come up with a justification.
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,...

That is a philosophical justification. I do not believe it is a Biblical justification. Nevertheless I do believe the American Revolution was ordained by God.

The proof is in the pudding.

There have been no late term abortions in Kansas since 5/31/09.

572 posted on 06/06/2009 1:35:46 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 571 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

Is there a Biblical justification when the government wages war against the citizens? I think that is what the Founding Fathers meant by “destructive of these ends.”


573 posted on 06/06/2009 2:04:39 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 572 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Is there a Biblical justification when the government wages war against the citizens?

You tell me. What scriptures can you give to justify it?

I think that is what the Founding Fathers meant by “destructive of these ends.”

That is a philosophical and moral justification. But what is the Biblical justification?

Imperial Rome had declared war against the Christian Church, but there was no Christian rebellion. Not to say that there should not have been one, but there wasn't.

574 posted on 06/06/2009 4:34:29 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 573 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; xzins
Is there a Biblical justification when the government wages war against the citizens?

You tell me. What scriptures can you give to justify it?

Saints Augustine and Thomas Aquinas both wrote extensively on "just war" and gave scriptural justifications. However, I have not studied any of this is quite some time, so I don't recall the exact reasons.

One thing that I do remember is that only legitimate governments can wage war, the Continental Congresses were made of up delegates sent by duly elected colonial legislatures, so they probably met this criteria.

I will certainly study this further, because I think it is certainly pertinent to the world we live in.

One thought I did have (and PLEASE know that I DO NOT want to get into a Catholic v. Protestant debate and will not participate in one) is that the European rulers of 500 years ago had sworn allegiance to the pope and all of the people were subjects of these rulers. So, were the Reformers justified in the Reformation? Because this is the first successful Christian rebellion against government and I think we can find a lot here that will apply to the current circumstances.

575 posted on 06/06/2009 5:57:44 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 574 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee; P-Marlowe

Render to Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and to God that which is God’s.

The government (rightful?) doesn’t bear the sword for nothing.

The most perfect biblical example of the true order being reestablished and a usurpation overthrown is that of Athaliah and Jehoash. It was very bloody.


576 posted on 06/06/2009 6:22:23 PM PDT by xzins (Chaplain Says: Jesus befriends those who seek His help.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 575 | View Replies]

To: xzins

So, you believe that there was Biblical justification for the American Revolution?


577 posted on 06/06/2009 6:32:00 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 576 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee; P-Marlowe
So, you believe that there was Biblical justification for the American Revolution?

Absolutely.

Acts 17:26 And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings,

578 posted on 06/06/2009 7:09:29 PM PDT by xzins (Chaplain Says: Jesus befriends those who seek His help.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 577 | View Replies]

To: xzins; P-Marlowe

Then what more, from a Biblical perspective can be done to end abortion?


579 posted on 06/06/2009 7:12:30 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 578 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Well, from a biblical military perspective one must first determine who are the enemy forces and who are the friendly forces.

Like the war on terror, it helps to know who the enemy is.


580 posted on 06/06/2009 7:25:19 PM PDT by xzins (Chaplain Says: Jesus befriends those who seek His help.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 579 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee; P-Marlowe
Thank you both so very much for sharing your insights, dear brothers in Christ!
581 posted on 06/06/2009 10:21:23 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 571 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 401-450451-500501-550551-581 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson