Featured Self justification

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

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 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.

 

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

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

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

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

 

So abortion isn't murder?

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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?

 

Yes or No: is abortion murder?

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

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..."

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

Yes.

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"?

 

Did I say any different?

 

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.

 

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

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


Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk