mfj Posted January 12, 2010 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 16 Content Per Day: 0.00 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/08/2010 Status: Offline Share Posted January 12, 2010 Thou shalt not kill really means thou shalt not murder(ie without reason). I'm sure you've heard this because that would mean a person doesn't have the right to defend her family or her country or little children from others who murder. Other wise the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) would be a murder charge against God. I think we are supposed to believe that God was saving some(Isreal) from the spiritual diseases of the people who lived in the promised land first. I'm not saying he was right, God "only" will judge him. If you "really believe" the doctor was murdering babies then you should also believe the guy was protecting babies. I'm saying that I think the culture has influenced christian thinking more than christian thinking has influenced the culture. I would not condemn the brave soldiers of our country who are over seas trying to protect others(you, me, and the people of those nations. Just because killing babies is legal here doesn't make it less than murder in God's eyes. There's a great post here about who's guilty, the teacher who is in the video makes a great point. We, as Christians, are not standing for what we believe, we are being silenced by the culture. That's the kind of culture God told the Isrealites to go kill all the men, women, children and yes even their animals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneLight Posted January 12, 2010 Group: Royal Member Followers: 22 Topic Count: 1,294 Topics Per Day: 0.21 Content Count: 31,762 Content Per Day: 5.22 Reputation: 9,763 Days Won: 115 Joined: 09/14/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted January 12, 2010 "This judge has basically announced a death sentence for all of us who help women," he said. "That is the effect of the ruling. This is an outrage." What he fails to realize is that he already has a death sentence on him, He needs to realize that he is killing innocent children and God is not ignoring his actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted January 12, 2010 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.94 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted January 12, 2010 But what had been expected to be an open-and-shut murder trial was upended Friday when a judge decided to let Roeder argue he should be convicted of voluntary manslaughter because he believed the May 31 slaying would save unborn children. Suddenly, the case has taken on a new significance that has galvanized both sides of the nation's abortion debate. Woah - what a brave judge! No, I do not support vigilantism (unless its Batman or Wolverine *smirk* ). But consider the impact this could have on the legal perception of abortion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest yod Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 I think it would be good to have a consistent interpretation of the law. This is why "hate crimes" is so stupid. It doesn't matter what this person's motive was. He went too far in exacting "justice" on his own. But the way common sense is put on a shelf so abortion can be considered a "civil right" instead the involuntary termination of an innocent person (can anyone make the case that a baby isn't innocent?) needs to be explored so I welcome any court that would look at this issue with the same amount of common sense that God gave to a horse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick-Parker Posted January 13, 2010 Group: Royal Member Followers: 8 Topic Count: 200 Topics Per Day: 0.23 Content Count: 4,273 Content Per Day: 4.87 Reputation: 1,855 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/17/2021 Status: Offline Birthday: 06/03/1955 Share Posted January 13, 2010 Well, I'll be. Since this is not a capital murder case, at least he will have the option to taste freedom again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nikki1 Posted January 13, 2010 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 98 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 1,260 Content Per Day: 0.23 Reputation: 55 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/29/2009 Status: Offline Author Share Posted January 13, 2010 Blessings, I share your sentiments mfj, One Light, Nebula, Butero... Good responses everyone. The update from today is that the Judge's ruling to allow for Voluntary Manslaughter will stay Update:Judge: Roeder can try to make manslaughter defense Prosecutors had filed a motion Monday saying the voluntary manslaughter defense is invalid because there is no evidence Tiller posed an imminent threat at the time of the killing. WICHITA, Kan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningGlory Posted January 13, 2010 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1,022 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 39,193 Content Per Day: 6.09 Reputation: 9,977 Days Won: 78 Joined: 10/01/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted January 13, 2010 This is not an open and shut issue. On the one hand, we should not take the law into our own hands. On the other, imagine this scenerio? You see a man getting ready to shoot a child on the playground. He has a gun to the child's head. Would it be ok to take the law into your own hand to save the child? In this instance, a man shot a would be child killer to prevent further killings. The only difference is that one person would be a legal child killer and the other would be breaking the law. I couldn't convict this man of first degree murder. I am not even sure I could convict him of a crime. I doubt if I could vote for 1st degree murder either. The world is a better place without Tiller. That being said, Roeder is just as much a murderer as the doctor in the eyes of the Lord. We can't really liken Tiller's killing to someone about to kill a child because he wasn't killing anyone when he was shot. I know Mr. Roeder believes he was preventing further deaths and the law has to consider intent. And whether premeditation is involved; for a 1st degree conviction it would have to be. Vigilante law isn't what our country is about although, in this case, It might be the only way to stop a prolific murderer of the unborn. Tough call for the jury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papasangel Posted January 18, 2010 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 70 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,513 Content Per Day: 0.19 Reputation: 39 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/19/2002 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/27/1959 Share Posted January 18, 2010 murder is murder. If you take a life with afore thought (and malice is considered hand in hand) even with the best of intentions we should not murder. Why? Because God will judge those who take the lives of innocents, the unborn and children. Now this man who committed murder with intent must pay the price for his actions. He will have to answer to God for his actions as will Mr. Tiller for his part in the murder of the unborn. Just because we act with "Christian" intent does not mean we are right to take God's job from God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Believer1997 Posted January 18, 2010 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 66 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 6,363 Content Per Day: 1.12 Reputation: 119 Days Won: 9 Joined: 11/07/2008 Status: Offline Share Posted January 18, 2010 'papasangel' Just because we act with "Christian" intent does not mean we are right to take God's job from God. How well put. We need to let God be God and stop trying to do His job. Amen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts