Made a comment on another forum....

[Turbo]

I believe he was trying to influence James Dobson to change his strategy in shaping politics. I dont see how it diminished pro-life influence.


Justin, from what I've read from you before, you seem to be a fairly reasonable person, BUT . . . try to read what you posted here and replace the word "abortion" with "murder." Isn't that the pro-life postion? Abortion is murder. Fewer abortions are better than more abortions. Abortion will not be eliminated by making it illegal, but that is no excuse.

Greg

In similar fashion, when murder was illegalized, people murdered others in secret. We now have the problem of back-alley murders instead of the clean and neat state-sanctioned murders. The fact that murder is illegal also did not stop Capone.

Greg

GuySmiley... Double POTD! :first: :second:

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

I believe he was trying to influence James Dobson to change his strategy in shaping politics.

I have to disagree--mainly because it didn't look like Bob was trying to "change" anyone's mind. To the best information I have available, Bob never expected Dobson to change his politics, and still does not.

I dont see how it diminished pro-life influence.

For the sole and specific reason that the World does not see this as a fight between two pro-Lifers: the world sees this as a fight between Christians. The World sees Enyart and Dobson fighting as a fight between Christians. OK, Christians are going to fight--Christians are human, too. But for Christians to fight between themselves in the eyes of the World...?

The World sees Enyart fighting Dobson, and remembers Matthew 12:25.

Fewer abortions are better than more abortions.

Greg, replace that with murders: fewer murders may be "better" than no murders, but the right thing is no murders. The Law may make the murderer fear murder ... the Law may even prevent murder because of the fear of the Law. But it is not enough to scare a murderer away: murderers must be "remade" from the inside out, and the Law can never change the heart.

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

You deny there is a link? Do you think those who present evidence for this link are lying and don't really believe there is a link? Upon what evidence do you make this claim?

I deny that any such link is proven--as demonstrated by the March 2004 Lancet article. Turbo, I would greatly prefer if the link was established and verified. But that's the point: the link may or may not exist, but Brind treating it as "already proven" is dishonest in the extreme.

So... your evidence that Bob Enyart is not truly pro-life is that he wrote an open letter criticizing out the failed political strategy of a popular pro-life leader and the vast majority of pro-life Christian, his core potential audience.

My evidence that Enyart is not truly pro-life is because he wants to exchange Dobson's failed strategy for his own (also doomed to failure) strategy. Do you prefer a less offensive term? Then I would say that Enyart is not effectively pro-life. Enyart, Dobson, Benham, and the rest of the "pro-life" ilk are the worst thing that has ever happened to the abortion debate, because they have made the pro-life forces fragmented, radicalized, and ineffective.

Does Bob want to point to Dobson and say "It's your fault?" Then Bob must realize that the finger he points with is as stained as Dobson's own.

If Bob's primary goal were to gain the largest audience possible he wouldn't promote such unpopular views.

Check your radar, Turbo--Enyart's views are not unpopular. They follow a well-traveled formula of demonizing one's opponents as part of a political statement.

Do you deny that Bob really believes Dobson should stand by his promise from years ago and that pro-lifers supporting the Republican party has been counterproductive?

Does he believe it? Yes. Did he ever feel that his letter would have any effect whatsoever on Dobson's policies? I have strenuous doubts.

I'm not hoping to gain favor from pro-aborts, and I'm sure Bob isn't either.

"Gain favor?" Heck, no. But if your goal is to bring guests to the wedding feast of the lamb, then you're going to have some explaining to do as to why you follow a policy of politics that is broken.

But if your goal is to be popular among pro-aborts, then keep on advocating that murdering the unborn should be legal and you should do fine.

Turbo, if that is a poke at my views, then you are guilty of bearing false witness against me. I do not advocate that abortion should be legal. If your purpose was not to accuse me of such, then I wish to clearly understand what you are saying--but if you are accusing me of advocating that abortion should be legal, then I will return to this thread when you retract and apologize for the lie.

 

[Turbo]

I have to disagree--mainly because it didn't look like Bob was trying to "change" anyone's mind. To the best information I have available, Bob never expected Dobson to change his politics, and still does not.

That doesn't mean he wouldn't be thrilled if Dobson did change his politics, it just means his expectations are realistic. And Dobson wasn't the only person who he hoped to persuade.

For the sole and specific reason that the World does not see this as a fight between two pro-Lifers: the world sees this as a fight between Christians. The World sees Enyart and Dobson fighting as a fight between Christians. OK, Christians are going to fight--Christians are human, too. But for Christians to fight between themselves in the eyes of the World...?

The World sees Enyart fighting Dobson, and remembers Matthew 12:25.

Paul harshly rebuked Paul, and God had it recorded in the Bible! :shocked:

Greg, replace that with murders: fewer murders may be "better" than no murders, but the right thing is no murders.

I think you made a typo in the first clause, but I get your drift.

My response is SO WHAT? You offer no alternative that will eliminate all murders. Why do you fight against a solution that will prevent most murderers and deliver justice to those murderers who are caught? Isn't 1000 murders annually better than 2,000,000? I can think of at least 1,999,000 who would certainly think so!

The Law may make the murderer fear murder ... the Law may even prevent murder because of the fear of the Law. But it is not enough to scare a murderer away: murderers must be "remade" from the inside out, and the Law can never change the heart.

What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator. Now a mediator does not mediate for one only, but God is one.

Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. Galatians 3:19-25


Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Romans 13:1-4
​

Should abortion be made illegal?

Should all other murder be made legal?

Should rape be made legal?

Should theft be made legal?

Should anything be illegal?

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

My response is SO WHAT? You offer no alternative that will eliminate all murders. Why do you fight against a solution that will prevent most murderers and deliver justice to those murderers who are caught? Isn't 1000 murders annually better than 2,000,000? I can think of at least 1,999,000 who would certainly think so!

I never promised an alternative that would prevent all murder--and neither does your Bible. Case in point....

What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator.​

If you lean on the Law, you doubt the promise.

Turbo, your Bible never promises an end to all murders until the world is perfect: when the old heavens and the old heart have passed away and all things have become new. The Law may prevent murders, but "prevention from the outside" is not the point: the heart must be made new. Even your own scripture says that one need not actually commit the murder to be just as guilty--and just as worthy of hellfire. (Matt 5:21-22)

Compared to the importance of changing the heart, the the Law is utterly unimportant.

 

[Poly]

Turbo, if that is a poke at my views, then you are guilty of bearing false witness against me.

Oh, now that is rich! What a joke you are!

You make bold statements about a man as if you know him well enough to do so, implying that his motives are not pure and that all he's after is a bigger audience. And your basis for this is because he wrote a letter expressing his concern of Dobson's views over political ideas on abortion. And you speak so "matter of factly" not even suggesting that you might be wrong. I think you have a lot of nerve. I don't know Bob nearly as well as others on this board but I know him well enough to know that you are DEAD WRONG when you suggest that his letter was "nothing more than an attempt to grab audience share". :down:

 

[Turbo]

Turbo, if that is a poke at my views, then you are guilty of bearing false witness against me. I do not advocate that abortion should be legal. If your purpose was not to accuse me of such, then I wish to clearly understand what you are saying--but if you are accusing me of advocating that abortion should be legal, then I will return to this thread when you retract and apologize for the lie.

So you do want abortion to be recriminalized? Great! I guess I misunderstood you when you made statements such as:

Abortion will never be eliminated by writing laws against it: it will only be eliminated by changing the hearts of the people, one heart at a time. This change of heart cannot be imposed by law, authority, or threat: it will only occur when that individual meets God.

It sure sounded like you were saying that recriminalizing abortion would not be a good thing. Maybe you could clarify what you were getting at.


Apparently I'm not the only one who misunderstood you because other jumped on board with these statements apparently thinking they were agreeing with you:

Abortion will only be eliminated by changing hearts, and this will not happen if it is enforced, it must be voluntary, but as for the establishment of a biblical society, it won't happen because it can't.

Like all other tings, if abortion were illegalized, it would simply open another avenue for black market enterprise. Back-alley abortion would once again become a problem, as women who truely believe that what they do is not wrong go off to poor surgery in order to protect their "rights".

Prohibition didn't stop Capone.

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

Oh, now that is rich! You make bold statements about a man as if you know him well enough to do so, implying that his motives are not pure and that all he's after is a bigger audience. And your basis for this is because he wrote a letter expressing his concern of Dobson's views over political ideas on abortion. And you speak so "matter of factly" not even suggesting that you might be wrong. I think you have a lot of nerve.

You evidently missed the last sentence of the OP: "To the best information I have, and to the best judgement that I can make based on my observations of the people involved, I present the above as an honest opinion." Heck, yes, I have a lot of nerve. I speak the truth to the best of my ability--acknowledging that I may be incorrect, but refusing to keep silence on a truthful statement merely because it might make people mad. I will continue to do so.

I don't know Bob nearly as well as others on this board but I know him well enough to know that you are DEAD WRONG when you suggest that his letter was "nothing more than an attempt to grab audience share". :down:

Poly, I would greatly prefer to be wrong. I would love nothing more than for Enyart's letter to be an effective means of making the kinds of changes I want so badly to see for this nation.

But I must make the best assesment I can. Am I wrong? Quite possibly--but until such time as I have evidence that leads me to a different conclusion, what I've presented is what I've seen.

 

[Turbo]

I never promised an alternative that would prevent all murder--and neither does your Bible. Case in point....

What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator.​

If you lean on the Law, you doubt the promise.

I don't lean on the Law for salvation. But only a fool would think that the Bible teaches that we should abandon criminal justice.

Turbo, your Bible never promises an end to all murders...

No kidding! But it does promise that administering proper criminal justice will minimize crime, and that failing to do so will lead to a crime epidemic.

Compared to the importance of changing the heart, the the Law is utterly unimportant.

Can't you stay on topic on your own thread? Whether or not the Law can save one's soul has nothing to do with whether good laws would be effective at preventing crimes. We're talking about how to keep babies from being torn apart limb from limb or burned with saline or stabbed in the back of the neck, not whether refraining from murdering one's baby for fear of being prosecuted means the babies mom will go to heaven.

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

So you do want abortion to be recriminalized?

Politically? Yes, abortion should be criminalized--though I view such laws as irrelevant to one who knows, loves, and obeys God.

It sure sounded like you were saying that recriminalizing abortion would not be a good thing. Maybe you could clarify what you were getting at.

I'm saying laws against abortion will not change the heart--and a change of heart will only result from meeting God. If I were to follow the Bible's paradigm, when you get to the throne, God is not going to be interested in what laws you passed: God is going to be interested in how you obeyed Him, and helped win people's hearts to Him.

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

Can't you stay on topic on your own thread?

The relationship between Man and God has ever been my topic--in every single thread I have ever posted here. Yes, including the Spam threads.

If an act does not spring from a person's relationship with God, that act is useless.

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

Poly, if my accusations are false, they are false through honest error, not through malice.

As for "Who are you to say that Bob's motives weren't pure?" I am a man who makes the best judgement he can. Don't like my best judgem,ent? That's your privelege--but I will not cease telling the truth to the best of my understanding.

Yes, Bob and I have different ideas on what is right, but when it comes to "Do right, and risk the consequences," we completely agree.

 

[Poly]

You evidently missed the last sentence of the OP: "To the best information I have, and to the best judgement that I can make based on my observations of the people involved, I present the above as an honest opinion."

Well, then, to the best information I have and to the best judgement that I can make based on my observations of the people involved, you're an idiot who doesn't have a clue over what he's talking about.

 

[GuySmiley]

For the sole and specific reason that the World does not see this as a fight between two pro-Lifers: the world sees this as a fight between Christians. The World sees Enyart and Dobson fighting as a fight between Christians. OK, Christians are going to fight--Christians are human, too. But for Christians to fight between themselves in the eyes of the World...?

I think you far overestimate how much of the world have ever heard of Enyart and his disagreement with Dobson. But if Bob can sway Dobson just a little, the benefits will greatly exceed any damage done, since Dobson's audience is huge. Also, Enyart repeatedly said he loved Dobson and was trying to help him. The entire point was made in love.

The World sees Enyart fighting Dobson, and remembers Matthew 12:25.

I think you overestimate even more how much of the world remembers Matthew 12:25.

Greg, replace that with murders: fewer murders may be "better" than no murders, but the right thing is no murders. The Law may make the murderer fear murder ... the Law may even prevent murder because of the fear of the Law. But it is not enough to scare a murderer away: murderers must be "remade" from the inside out, and the Law can never change the heart.

I don't disagree with anything you said here. That's not the problem I have with your posts. But answer this with a yes or no, just to be clear: Do you believe abortion should be kept legal?

I believe you are pro-life, but its just inconceivable to me that you would argue that abortion should be kept legal since a law against it won't end abortion. Or do I misunderstand?

Greg

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

...you're an idiot who doesn't have a clue over what he's talking about.

:shrug: That's fine--though the above statement certainly sounds far more like malice than discretion, if that's your best judgement, then so be it.

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

I think you far overestimate ...

Greg, it is quite possible--as I've said before in this thread--that I am wrong. However,

I think you overestimate even more how much of the world remembers Matthew 12:25.

I've seen this verse cited--frequently with a glee that I cannot share--as a sign of the "immanent collapse of the Christian church." Though I tend to take such statements with a large bag of salt, I have to remember that the attitude is there.

I don't disagree with anything you said here. That's not the problem I have with your posts. But answer this with a yes or no, just to be clear: Do you believe abortion should be kept legal?

I believe you are pro-life, but its just inconceivable to me that you would argue that abortion should be kept legal since a law against it won't end abortion. Or do I misunderstand?

:yes: Yes, you do misunderstand--though since both you and Turbo misunderstood, evidently I wasn't terribly clear.

I believe abortion should be illegalized, but I believe that meeting God is far more important than such laws. Yes, the Law is important--but compared to the importance of meeting God, the Law is completely and totally irrelevant.

 

[Turbo]

Politically? Yes, abortion should be criminalized

Then it might be better if you refrained from criticizing people for trying to accomplish just that?

--though I view such laws as irrelevant to one who knows, loves, and obeys God.

But most people (including you, I'm afraid ) don't know, love, or obey God and that isn't going to change any time soon.

Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. Matthew 7:13-14

But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust. 1 Timothy 1:8-11​

I'm saying laws against abortion will not change the heart

And they won't change my brake pads either. SO WHAT?? They will prevent many innocent babes from being massacred, and that is a good thing!

--and a change of heart will only result from meeting God. If I were to follow the Bible's paradigm, when you get to the throne, God is not going to be interested in what laws you passed: God is going to be interested in how you obeyed Him, and helped win people's hearts to Him.

You don't think God is also pleased when the shedding of innocent blood is prevented?​

 

[Turbo]

...but compared to the importance of meeting God, the Law is completely and totally irrelevant.

Have you met the God of the Bible, the Lord Jesus Christ?

 

[GuySmiley]

Ok, Ok, Phew, but can we really end a thread with an agreement?

but compared to the importance of meeting God, the Law is completely and totally irrelevant.

Rom 5:20-21
Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more, so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
NKJV

Rom 3:20
20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
NKJV

The law leads people to meeting God by revealing sin.

Gal 3:24-25
24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.
NKJV

So the law is a tutor that brings people to Christ, and is indispensable in pointing out sin.

Greg

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

But most people (including you, I'm afraid ) don't know, love, or obey God and that isn't going to change any time soon.

Turbo, we can have no agreement on this point, but I acknowledge your statement. I disagree with it (of course), but I want you to know that I am not ignoring it.

You don't think God is also pleased when the shedding of innocent blood is prevented?

No, I don't think God is pleased when you take time away from doing what you believe He's told you to do (spread the Gospel) in order to do what you feel is best (make laws). Don't get me wrong--as I've said before, the law and government is important. But Turbo, I sincerely and honestly feel that the attempt to make a "Christian nation" will result in trying to serve two masters: specifically, I don't really believe that it is humanly possible to be involved in government without becoming "of the world."