Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Slain officer in Colorado Springs was a pro-life pastor

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Amid media speculation about the possible motivation of the Colorado Springs shooter who killed three people at a Planned Parenthood clinic last Friday, one thing seems to have been overlooked: the slain officer, The Rev. Garrett Swasey, was actually a pro-life pastor (h/t Terry Mattingly).

Time magazine reports that the officer was “heavily involved in his church, a non-denominational evangelical place of worship called Hope Chapel where he was a co-pastor.” Hope Chapel’s doctrinal statements can be viewed online here. The Chapel’s statement on marriage is doctrinally conservative, firmly opposed to gay marriage, and its affirmation that “children, from the moment of conception, are a blessing and heritage from the Lord” is staunchly pro-life (emphases mine – VJT):

It is the belief of Hope Chapel that God has ordained the family as the foundational institution of human society. It is composed of persons related to one another by marriage, blood, or adoption.

We believe marriage is the uniting of one man and one woman in a covenant commitment for a lifetime. Marriage is God’s unique gift to reveal the union between Christ and His church. Marriage also provides the man and the woman the framework for intimate companionship, the channel for sexual expression according to biblical standards, and the means for procreation of the human race. 1

We believe the husband and wife are of equal worth before God, since both are created in God’s image.2 The marriage relationship models the way God relates to His people. A husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the church. He has the God-given responsibility to provide for, to protect, and to lead his family. A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband, even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ.3 Being made in the image of God, as is her husband, and thus being equal to him, she has the God-given responsibility to respect her husband, and to serve as his helper in managing the household and nurturing the next generation.4

We believe children, from the moment of conception, are a blessing and heritage from the Lord.5 Parents are to demonstrate to their children God’s pattern for marriage. Parents are to teach their children spiritual and moral values, and to lead them to make choices based on biblical truth, through loving discipline and the consistent example of their own lifestyle.6 Children are to honor and obey their parents.7

We express our enthusiastic support for those public policies and programs which aim to strengthen the marriage commitment and to reverse the trend of the disintegration of the nuclear family.

As Christian ministers, we are bound to uphold the integrity of Scripture. We will only perform weddings for believing couples.8 We do not view marriage as a civil union, but as a covenant between a man and a woman, and almighty God.9 Therefore, we reserve the right to refuse to marry any who, according to the Bible, are ineligible. This includes those who are unrepentant with regard to pre-marital sex, those who are co-habiting together,10 and anyone who has not made a credible profession of faith in Jesus Christ.

1 Gen 2:24; Eph 5:32; Gen 1:22; 8:17; 35:11; Prov 5:18; Mal 2:15
2 Gal 3:28, 1Pet 3:7; Gen 1:26-27
3 Eph 5:22-25; 1Cor 11:3
4 Gen 2:18; Eph 6:4; Prov 31:10-31
5 Psa 127:3; Psa 139:13-16
6 1Cor 11:1; 1Pet 2:21; Prov 13:24;
7 Exo 20:12; Eph 6:1; Col 3:20
8 2Cor 6:14
9 Jer 31:31-32; Mal 2:14
10 2Cor 12:21; Eph 5:3

In plain English: The Rev. Garrett Swasey believed that abortion is homicide.

Hope Chapel’s doctrinal statement also forcefully declares: “The Scriptures are fully and verbally inspired by God as the prophets were moved by His Spirit.” No room for ambiguity there.

In his report on the Colorado Springs shooting, Terry Mattingly includes a telling quote from the late Cardinal John O’Connor of New York City :

“If anyone has an urge to kill someone at an abortion clinic, they should shoot me,” said the late Cardinal John O’Connor, preaching to his New York City flock in 1994. “It’s madness. It discredits the right-to-life movement. Murder is murder. It’s madness. You cannot prevent killing by killing.”

Mattingly adds that the slain officer, The Rev. Garrett Swasey, “made this statement to the gunman as he tried to protect people whose lives were at risk: ‘Shoot me.'” A recording of Rev. Swasey’s final sermon can be heard here.

Meanwhile, Mother Jones magazine, in an indignant article titled, “The New, Ugly Surge in Violence and Threats Against Abortion Providers,” suggests that the shootings at Colorado Springs may be connected with “an exponential increase in threats and violence against abortion providers since the release of a series of viral—and widely debunked—videos.” However, the cases of violence which the article cites go back almost 20 years, to the 1990s. (There have been cases of vandalism since then, but property offenses fall into a different moral category from crimes against persons.)

I might add that the Planned Parenthood videos, far from having been debunked, are in fact truthful and accurate (see here, here, here and here). Planned Parenthood has broken the law on at least four counts: illegal profiting from the sale of fetal tissue; performing illegal partial-birth abortions; illegally manipulating abortion procedures; and illegally performing abortions with the knowledge that the fetal body parts will be “donated” to research. As if that were not bad enough, these 39 Yelp reviews of the “services” provided by Planned Parenthood make horrific reading. As one reviewer put it: “If You Can Possibly Avoid Coming Here, Do It.” Reviewers describe Planned Parenthood clinics as “filthy,” “dirty” and manned by staff who displayed “complete indifference and a lack of compassion” and who were “not qualified for a consultation.” Summing it up, one reviewer wrote: “Worst service ever.”

Whatever the reasons may be for the appalling “services” provided by Planned Parenthood, money isn’t one of them: the organization boasted assets of more than $800 million in 2005-2006. Citing a 2007 report in the Weekly Standard, Slate Senior Editor Rachael Larimore writes that Planned Parenthood “gets at least a third of its clinic income — and more than 10 percent of all its revenue, government funding included — from its abortion procedures.” The oft-repeated the claim that abortions make up only 3 percent of the services that Planned Parenthood provides is therefore a shoddy statistic: Larimore describes it as “the most meaningless abortion statistic ever.” (Former Planned Parenthood clinic director Abby Johnson writes that 12 per cent would be a more accurate figure.) In addition, Planned Parenthood gets one-third of its entire budget from taxpayer funding – a figure which belies its frequent assertions that American taxpayers’ dollars do not to pay for abortions.

Ironically, Planned Parenthood, which performs just under one-third of all abortions in the United States, was founded by a women’s rights activist named Margaret Sanger, who opposed abortion and viewed it as an evil practice. In 1932, Sanger wrote: “Although abortion may be resorted to in order to save the life of the mother, the practice of it merely for limitation of offspring is dangerous and vicious.”

Meanwhile, the media reports that the shooting suspect allegedly made a comment to police about “no more baby parts.” However, it turns out that the suspect, who appears to have been an independent art dealer with a degree in public administration, had no political affiliations: he was registered as an unaffiliated voter in Colorado (where he owns a trailer on a piece of land in a town located 100 kilometers west of Colorado Springs), and people who knew him say that religion or abortion never came up in conversation. The man also had no on-line presence that anyone has yet found. Fr. Bill Carmody, a Catholic priest who has celebrated Mass regularly for 20 years in front of the Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs where the shootings took place says that the suspect was not part of his group, adding:“I don’t know him from Adam. I don’t recognize him at all.” Readers can learn more about the suspect’s history here.

Republican presidential candidates Mike Huckabee, Carly Fiorina and Dr. Ben Carson have forcefully condemned Friday’s shootings in Colorado Springs, which former Arkansas Governor Huckabee described as “domestic terrorism.”

In the wake of the shootings, President Obama has called for tighter gun control laws. Given the shooting suspect’s history of alleged domestic violence and his previous arrest records (including two counts of cruelty to animals), I have to say that I agree with the President.

What do readers think?

Comments
jokehalfbrain:
If a one week old fetus is as human as a ten year old child, why would we accept violence to interrupt the holocaust, but not to interrupt abortions?
Because we are a sad and pathetic society.Virgil Cain
December 1, 2015
December
12
Dec
1
01
2015
03:56 AM
3
03
56
AM
PDT
"JHG, You have already been fully answered in the words of the US DoI and linked themes. Sorry, you do not get to distract, distort, denigrate and demand that your threadjacking prevails. Enough has been said for the serious. KF" You most certainly have not answered. You ave avoided, evaded, obfuscated and equivocated. But there was not an answer amongst the lot. I am being serious with the question. I am interested in the mindset of those who feel that abortion is murder and that a fetus has the same rights as a child or an adult. Don't get me wrong, I don't advocate for abortion; I would much prefer adoption. But I don't feel that it is my call to make. I agree with you that pro-life advocates should not resort to violence. But in my case I believe this because I don't think that abortion is murder. Yet, I certainly advocate for whatever violence is necessary to prevent the murder of children or adults. As, I assume, you do. But for those who honestly believe that abortion is murder, why wouldn't violence against an abortion doctor be justified. Again, don't get me wrong. I am glad that the vast majority of people don't, I just don't understand why not. If it is because they don't believe in the use if violence to prevent the murder of anyone, fair enough. That person is a better man than I.joehalfgallon
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
10:44 PM
10
10
44
PM
PDT
KF @74 Timely reference to the anti-evil movement in Munich during WWII. We can learn a few things from those brave young Germans, who resisted being brainwashed by the powerful repressive regime that terrorized their country. The WR stood firm against an evil doctrine that kept most of that continent in darkness for several years and caused so much death and destruction.Dionisio
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
10:43 PM
10
10
43
PM
PDT
PHV, You have willfully ignored stated context that the holocaust took place during a war in zones where there were no competent and capable civil authorities to correct the evil and take those responsible in custody. OK, so the distinguishing factor is that violence is impermissible to save human lives where there are "competent and capable civil authorities to correct the evil and take those responsible in custody." I think that's a defensible standard, but--predictably--it's totally irrelevant to the question at hand. Because of course, there are no "competent and capable civil authorities to correct the evil [of abortion] and take those responsible in custody." The civil authorities in both cases, abortion and the Holocaust, take the position that the putative murder at issue is legal. That's the point of the hypothetical: why is it permissible to arrogate the power of violent compulsion to ourselves in one case, but not the other? Both cases assume the authorities won't do anything, so individual civilians must. So to say that the difference is that in one case there are "competent and capable civil authorities to correct the evil" is a bizarre and useless criteria. Who are those civil authorities? Who's going to issue arrest warrants for gynecologists for providing abortions? If your argument is that eventually someone will start issuing such warrants, then I find that unserious. After all, as I said above, I doubt you'd tell the first truckload of genocide victims, "Sorry, I won't take up arms to defend you--after all, someone might arrest these guys for gassing you, and we can't tell until after you're dead." Nor would you demand people sit idly by while terrorists gun down a crowd, merely because there are cops waiting outside to take the perpetrators into custody. Your rule fails the most basic test: it doesn't apply anywhere but in this one special circumstance.Pro Hac Vice
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
10:43 PM
10
10
43
PM
PDT
PHV, You have willfully ignored stated context that the holocaust took place during a war in zones where there were no competent and capable civil authorities to correct the evil and take those responsible in custody. We were dealing with those who usurped and corrupted the government of a major military power. As it was, brave people, Christian people, sacrificed their lives to sound the alarm to their nation and the world. Something you seemingly have no respect for, itself a big red warning flag. You have now proceeded to erect a strawman caricature soaked in slanderous ad hominems and have rhetorically ignited same to cloud, confuse, poison and polarise the atmosphere. That speaks volumes and removes you from the circle of civil discussion. Good day. KFkairosfocus
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
10:30 PM
10
10
30
PM
PDT
JHG, You have already been fully answered in the words of the US DoI and linked themes. Sorry, you do not get to distract, distort, denigrate and demand that your threadjacking prevails. Enough has been said for the serious. KFkairosfocus
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
10:24 PM
10
10
24
PM
PDT
"Running sadly true to form . . ." Yes, unfortunately, you are. Why are you afraid to answer the question? I answered it honestly and in good faith. I think it is OK to use deadly force against a terrorist in a night club to save 100 lives, but not OK to use deadly force against an abortion doctor to save 500 fetuses. Do you have the same sentiments? If so, why? If not, why not?joehalfgallon
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
10:02 PM
10
10
02
PM
PDT
Running sadly true to form . . .kairosfocus
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
09:40 PM
9
09
40
PM
PDT
EDTA Thank you for your comments @58. I think you correctly answered 'no' to the question relative to Job 1:19. I believe the events described in Job 1:19 are validated by what is said in Job 1:21. Only the Maker of Life can dispose of it at His will. Also you made an interesting reference to Isaiah 45:7. Here are a few related comments:
I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the LORD, who does all these things. [Isaiah 45:7 (ESV)]
light . . . darkness. The Lord asserts His power over two fundamental poles of reality, as described in Gen. 1:3-4. The parallel terms “well-being” and “calamity” include the political realities that Cyrus was going to disturb in fulfilling the counsel of God
And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. [Genesis 1:3-4 (ESV)]
God said. God’s free act of creation through the divine Word (Ps. 33:6, 9; cf. John 1:1, 3) signifies that the universe is not an emanation or part of the divine being, thus ruling out all forms of pantheism. Though creation is not part of God’s being, all creation is utterly dependent on God for its existence, for He creates and sustains all that is by the power of His own being. Let there be. God’s will is irresistible. It is carried out by divine imperative. light. God is the ultimate source of the daylight that alternates with darkness; the sun is later introduced as the immediate cause (vv. 14–18; v. 5 and note). Light symbolizes life and blessing (Ps. 4:7; 56:13; Is. 9:2; John 1:4, 5). good. Brought within God’s constraints, even the darkness and watery deep (vv. 2, 10) are now “good,” serving God’s benevolent purposes (Ps. 104:19–26). The creation bears witness to God’s handiwork (Ps. 19:1–6). separated. The Hebrew here is also translated “set apart.” Separation is fundamental both to creation and to Israel’s existence (3:15; 4:1–17; 12:1; Lev. 20:24, 25; Num. 8:14).
When its boughs are dry, they are broken; women come and make a fire of them. For this is a people without discernment; therefore He who made them will not have compassion on them; He who formed them will show them no favor. [Isaiah 27:11 (ESV)]
boughs. The mighty city will become brittle like dried out branches. people without discernment. The city is inhabited by foolish idolaters (2:8 note; Rom. 1:20–23). he who formed. A frequent designation of God as Creator, Ruler, and Redeemer of His people. The verb denotes planning (“purposed,” 46:11); authority, as of an artisan over his materials (41:25); creation and providence (45:18); and the formation of a new people (43:1, 21; 44:2, 21; 49:5; 64:8). favor. This is the undeserved grace of God (26:10; 30:18, 19; 33:2).
You made a reservoir between the two walls for the water of the old pool. But you did not look to him who did it, or see him who planned it long ago. [Isaiah 22:11 (ESV)]
old pool. Probably the Gihon Spring, also known as the “upper pool” (7:3; 36:2). did not look . . . see him. While busying themselves with planning and fortifying Jerusalem, they forgot the Lord. planned it long ago. God had planned the future of Jerusalem when He determined long before to create it (37:26). No one could change His plan or avert His judgment.
For His invisible attributes, namely, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks to Him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. [Romans 1:20-23 (ESV)] Note: Commentaries from the Reformation Study Bible provided by Ligonier Ministries.
Dionisio
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
09:35 PM
9
09
35
PM
PDT
KF: "JJ, that resort to disposable sock puppetry is a distinct possibility, one long since noticed." KF, I would think that you, of all people, would abhor the attempts by someone to out and cyber-bully another commenter. But I guess I was sadly wrong. For the record, I am not PHV, or William Spearshake, or whoever else JJ is accusing me of being. "However, that is not the true answer. The true answer is to recognise and expose moral blindness, incompetence and willful irresponsibility in the face of the requisites of the civil peace of justice. And in extreme cases, demonic motivation." Translation: "I can't explain why it is OK to kill a terrorist in a Paris night club to save 100 human souls, but not OK to kill an abortion doctor to save 500 human souls."joehalfgallon
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
08:59 PM
8
08
59
PM
PDT
Stirring! But it avoids the question, again. If we assume it would be right to take up arms to stop the Holocaust, even in the absence of a declaration of war, why would it be wrong to take up arms to stop abortion? Is it that abortion is legal? Well, so was the Holocaust (I assume). Is it that abortion might stop over time without violence? I don't think anyone here would give that answer to a Jew being dragged away--"Sorry, but the Holocaust just started, you have to die so that we can see whether this thing is amenable to democratic pressure." Why is it moral to use violence to stop the Holocaust, but not abortion? "The White Rose martyrs!" is not an answer. Why is it moral to use violence to end slavery (which many people believe would have ended peacefully over time, although I disagree) but not abortion? "You people are evil and destroying society!" is not an answer. An answer would be an answer. Would I be foolish to expect one, in lieu of another stentorian sermon?Pro Hac Vice
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
08:48 PM
8
08
48
PM
PDT
JJ, that resort to disposable sock puppetry is a distinct possibility, one long since noticed. However, that is not the true answer. The true answer is to recognise and expose moral blindness, incompetence and willful irresponsibility in the face of the requisites of the civil peace of justice. And in extreme cases, demonic motivation. Let us hear again the White Rose Martyrs, standing for truth and exposing demonic evil at the cost of their lives:
WR, II: Since the conquest of Poland three hundred thousand Jews have been murdered in this country in the most bestial way . . . The German people slumber on in their dull, stupid sleep and encourage these fascist criminals . . . Each man wants to be exonerated of a guilt of this kind, each one continues on his way with the most placid, the calmest conscience. But he cannot be exonerated; he is guilty, guilty, guilty! WR, IV: Every word that comes from Hitler’s mouth is a lie. When he says peace, he means war, and when he blasphemously uses the name of the Almighty, he means the power of evil, the fallen angel, Satan. His mouth is the foul-smelling maw of Hell, and his might is at bottom accursed. True, we must conduct a struggle against the National Socialist terrorist state with rational means; but whoever today still doubts the reality, the existence of demonic powers, has failed by a wide margin to understand the metaphysical background of this war.
A greater voice, that of their Master, and mine -- the Martyr of Martyrs, from the greatest sermon ever given:
Matt 6:22 “The eye is the lamp of the body. So, if your eye is healthy, your whole body will be full of light, 23 but if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!
The answer to great, and especially demonic darkness is to turn on the light of great moral truth. Then, comes the test and the verdict: light is come but men love darkness instead of light as their deeds are evil; nor will they come to the light for fear that their evil deeds will be exposed. But he who is of the truth will come to the light that it may be seen that what he does has been done through God. (Jn 3:17 - 21.) A glance at the above is sufficient to see the reaction to light. Going beyond, we have a great basis for addressing reform and transformation of government and civil society, in the charter of modern democracy, the US DoI, 1776. In this, we see the answer to grave injustice and abuse within a civil society, and coming from without:
When . . . it becomes necessary for one people . . . to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, [cf Rom 1:18 - 21, 2:14 - 15], 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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, 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 . . .
Light shines in and dispels darkness, which can only rage and seek to put it out, by distraction, discrediting, polarisation and in the end, murder. To which, the answer of any decent society is to honour martyrs of truth such as the officer who gave his life in Colorado. Let us therefore refresh our moral vision from his example and the teachings of his church; thereby seeing truth afresh and exposing those who would suppress the truth in wickedness, by lies, by rhetorical attacks to the man, and in the end by murder. For such are of those who, BECAUSE they are told truth that runs contrary to their proclivities and determined bent, will reject it and will hoggishly turn on those who have put pearls before pigs. KFkairosfocus
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
08:39 PM
8
08
39
PM
PDT
It's a shame this conversation has bypassed the thoughtful UD regulars. I'd be curious how they square what seems like a circle to me; I think there's probably a principled position that justifies behaving differently under the hypo, but not in these responses. I'm not joehalfgallon or any other poster. I've only ever posted here as PHV and Learned Hand. I think I probably use both from time to time, depending on whether I'm on my old computer or my new one (saved logins), but I don't think anyone is confused about who I am. Especially since I've introduced myself by my real name and linked to my paltry Twitter feed and occasional blog postings from time to time.Pro Hac Vice
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
08:22 PM
8
08
22
PM
PDT
vjtorley Thanks for the correction. i thought homicide only meant murder. I didn't know it was motive neutral. I bet most don't. I'm glag you picked it on purpose and didn't say abortion was mirder like too many of my fellow pro-lifers do.Robert Byers
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
07:00 PM
7
07
00
PM
PDT
Frankie: "That is usually how it goes with mentally lazy militant lefties and homosexuals like joehalfgallon aka Pro Hac Vice and what ever other sock account he has." Thank you for the kind words. I'm sure that Pro Hac Vac and I appreciate them as much as you, Joe, Virgil and Jack enjoyed writing them.joehalfgallon
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
06:38 PM
6
06
38
PM
PDT
@68 "Jack if you don’t share extreme left wing views you are a (something) phobe ….it’s that simple" That is usually how it goes with mentally lazy militant lefties and homosexuals like joehalfgallon aka Pro Hac Vice and what ever other sock account he has.Jack Jones
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
06:29 PM
6
06
29
PM
PDT
Virgil: "The question is, Why do you think that people that do not share your extreme left wing views have to answer to you?" Nobody is asking you to. The bigger question is why you think it necessary to justify your views by insulting others? As KF would say, "very telling".joehalfgallon
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
06:27 PM
6
06
27
PM
PDT
PHV To understand you better: who should declare war on who in N.America today? Jack if you don't share extreme left wing views you are a (something) phobe ....it's that simple :DEugen
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
06:21 PM
6
06
21
PM
PDT
@29 Pro Hac who is probably a sock of joehalfgallon We have a good idea of what ideas sickos like you have with your pro abortion and pro homosexual views etc The question is, Why do you think that people that do not share your extreme left wing views have to answer to you? @66 joehalfgallon the other account says "Canada has been doing it for over a decade. The US is now doing it." Nope, they can issue a license but it is not really a marriage license because a same sex marriage is a contradiction in terms. It is a pretense. You can pretend to be married but you never truly can be married. Logic trumps your perverse lifestyle. "The fact that you are homophobic does not change these facts." The fact that people are disgusted by your lifestyle does not mean they fear you, The fact you enjoy your disgusting behavior does not change the fact you never can really be married.Jack Jones
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
06:19 PM
6
06
19
PM
PDT
Joe: "It’s not possible to issue a marriage license to a same sex couple, same sex marriage is a contradiction in terms. You may be one of those kind and if you are then you can never really be married." Canada has been doing it for over a decade. The US is now doing it. The fact that you are homophobic does not change these facts.joehalfgallon
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
06:17 PM
6
06
17
PM
PDT
Hello, Jack. Can you resolve the quandary for us? What distinguishes situations in which it's OK to use force to protect human lives from those in which it's wrong to use force to protect human lives?Pro Hac Vice
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
06:16 PM
6
06
16
PM
PDT
In times of peace we seek peaceful solutions, in times of war we seek violent solutions. So if no one had ever declared war on Germany, it would have been wrong to use violence to stop the Holocaust? It's a bold position, and one I think few people share.Pro Hac Vice
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
06:14 PM
6
06
14
PM
PDT
@55 What I am noticing KF is that all of these lefty loonies posting here all of a sudden are probably one person with sock accounts.Jack Jones
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
06:13 PM
6
06
13
PM
PDT
KF, I support PHV's comment. Admitting that a moral quandary is insolvable is not the weakness. Admitting that one does not exist, is. Yes, what we presented was a loaded question. But what you have to ask is, why is it a loaded question? Talking about just wars and nonsense like that is just equivocation at its best. 1) why is it OK to use violence against terrorists killing people in a Paris night club? 2) why is it not OK to use violence against abortion doctors killing babies in the womb? Until you can resolve this inconsistency, all other arguments are pointless. Are you willing to answer this question? Yes or no?joehalfgallon
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
06:13 PM
6
06
13
PM
PDT
@40 "Now, let’s compare that to a certain county clerk who will remain nameless (because her name slips my mind), who refused to issue a marriage license to a same sex couple IN SPITE of the oath she took." It's not possible to issue a marriage license to a same sex couple, same sex marriage is a contradiction in terms. You may be one of those kind and if you are then you can never really be married.Jack Jones
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
06:11 PM
6
06
11
PM
PDT
Pro Hac Vice,
The closest you’ve come to an answer, I think, was your comment at 42 suggesting that violence is unjustified while persuasion and legal advocacy may yet be successful. It’s an interesting point, but it doesn’t really address the issue here. Why would it be right for a civilian to use force against the Paris attackers but not a gynecologist preparing to perform an abortion? The fact that abortion may be outlawed in a decade is hardly relevant to the human life at hand.
I just noticed KF at post #1. Everything he's said since then seems to contradict that post. If it's not justifiable to kill a Nazi to save hundreds of Jewish lives, or to kill someone about to kill a room full of children, than how would it be justifiable to kill the terrorists in Paris?goodusername
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
06:05 PM
6
06
05
PM
PDT
Don't set up silly scenarios. In times of peace we seek peaceful solutions, in times of war we seek violent solutions.Eugen
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
06:05 PM
6
06
05
PM
PDT
Dionisio @ 11:
Could the above quoted text relate to Job 1:19? Hint: Job 1:21
No, I was thinking more of Isa 45:7: “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.” (KJV) This is the Lord choosing to use the word “ra”, which other translations render as “disaster” or “calamity”, but which in many places is rendered “evil” (even in the NIV and NAS versions).
Only the Maker of Life can dispose of it at His will. He doesn’t need our validation or opinion.
He does not need it, that is for sure. Yet in OT times, He sent the Assyrians against His chosen people, which is to say He took responsibility for willing people to kill other people. (The Assyrians would think they were acting on their own initiative. Then, God would turn and judge the Assyrians themselves for their haughtiness.) This is the same God that makes allowance for killing when someone attempts to kill you. And the God that allows governments to punish lawbreakers with death, and by extension, permits individual agents of governments to kill lawbreakers. There is more to the matter of evil, and who can kill and under what circumstances, than a simple black/white dividing line. (As other responders are pointing out.)
His perfect justice will be fulfilled at His time, in His terms.
May He bring it to a culmination soon.EDTA
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
05:58 PM
5
05
58
PM
PDT
KF, I have noticed your insistent diversions and your refusal to address the question. So has everyone else. It's a very hard question, but you aren't required to bluster and insult us if you can't answer it. You could just say, "I don't know," or "I'm still thinking about it." Insulting us instead for not reading your mind to divine an answer you can't put in words is... well, characteristic, if unhelpful. The closest you've come to an answer, I think, was your comment at 42 suggesting that violence is unjustified while persuasion and legal advocacy may yet be successful. It's an interesting point, but it doesn't really address the issue here. Why would it be right for a civilian to use force against the Paris attackers but not a gynecologist preparing to perform an abortion? The fact that abortion may be outlawed in a decade is hardly relevant to the human life at hand.Pro Hac Vice
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
05:34 PM
5
05
34
PM
PDT
KF, So you would let the classroom of children die for the sake of "civil peace"? I hope your view never becomes popular.
And at no point has the word and sacrifice of the White Rose Martyrs been heeded. KF
What do you believe isn't being "heeded"?goodusername
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
05:25 PM
5
05
25
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply