Dr. Shane Posted January 8, 2005 Share Posted January 8, 2005 The Rainbow Coalition is a political group disguised as a civil rights group. They should lose their tax-exempt status just like Pat Robertson's group did. It doesn't matter if they are national or local white-hating racists. Sorry it rubs me the wrong way when certain racial groups are excluded from membership. I don't care for that "country club" environment. I like variety. Quote Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosie Posted January 9, 2005 Share Posted January 9, 2005 Quote: Sister Rosie, I see your Christian Education quote and up it one MYP quote. Have you thoughts that you dare not express, that you may one day stand upon the summit of intellectual greatness; that you may sit in deliberative and legislative councils, and help to enact laws for the nation? There is nothing wrong with these aspirations. You may every one of you make your mark, You should be content with no mean attainments. Aim high, and spare no pains to reach the standard. quote above continued: "The fear of the Lord lies at the foundation of all true greatness. Integrity, unswerving integrity, is the principle that you need to carry with you into all the relations of life. Take your religion into your school life, into your boarding house, into all your pursuits. The important question with you now is, how to so choose and perfect your studies that you will maintain the solidity and purity of an untarnished Christian character, holding all temporal claims and interests in subjection to the higher claims of the gospel of Christ. " You might have missed my main point in quoting Sister White, Brother Shane. Please do reread them at your convenience. Her point seems to be that Jesus and His Kingdom be first priority for His people, as your quote also indicates. Jesus should never become secondary or back burner to political aspirations. So the youth may aim high, certainly. But never by making Jesus an afterthought. Quote: I guess I would have to say that Dr. Dobson is aiming high and sparing no pain to reach the standard. Context is everything. And I am not playing "trump the Ellen White quotes" with you. Those in the ministry who desire to stand as politicians should have their credentials taken from them; for this work God has not given to high or low among His people Like I said, you will find very little "Jesus" in Dobson's "Citizen Links". That Dobson's aiming high politically, there can be no argument. He's doing all in his power to further an agenda, but is that agenda still Jesus Christ and the Kingdom of Heaven? What she wrote is applicable to the post, and good solid advice for the ministers of God. And what you quoted, when you look at the big picture, is good solid advice for all of us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Shane Posted January 9, 2005 Share Posted January 9, 2005 </font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr /> Those in the ministry who desire to stand as politicians should have their credentials taken from them; for this work God has not given to high or low among His people <hr /></blockquote><font class="post"> You miss the obvious. I agree that God does not call a man to be both a pastor and a politician. Those are two distinct callings. But the obvious is that Dr. Dobson isn't running for any political office. He will be lobbying elected officicals and campaining for some and against others. Contrast that with the ordained pastors on the left. Jesse Jackson and Al Fraankin have both ran for political office. That doesn't sit well with me. It didn't sit well with me when Pat Robertson ran for office either, although he is a lot more extreame than Dr. Dobson. Quote Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosie Posted January 9, 2005 Share Posted January 9, 2005 Shane, I am under the impression that she is speaking of ministers using their credentials to further politics from their pulpit to their captive congregations. "Standing as politicians", not running for office. Doubleminded ministers do neither cause any good. The Religious Right is trying to do just that with their "House of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act". http://blog.au.org/2004/08/jonesing_for_el.html Quote: .S. Rep. Walter B. Jones (R-N.C.) says his proposed legislation to permit religious leaders to endorse candidates for public office is necessary to restore free speech in America's pulpits. He even calls his bill the "Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act" (H.R. 235). But now the truth has come out. As it turns out, the bill really isn't intended to promote free speech at all. Instead, Jones sees it as a vehicle to elect more conservatives to public office. In a recent column, Religious Right warhorse Paul M. Weyrich wrote, "Jones is absolutely convinced that this can be accomplished in this Congress. He is equally convinced that the passage of his bill means the difference between victory and defeat for the president and many Senate candidates. One prime example is his colleague Rep. Richard Burr, who is running for the seat vacated by Sen. John Edwards, the Democratic vice-presidential nominee." Weyrich's column confirms what many have suspected all along: The Jones bill has nothing to do with the lofty goal of "restoring" free speech. Rather, it's just another vehicle for the Religious Right to use to gets its favored candidates into office. Americans United has steadfastly opposed all forms of church politicking, whether it is done on behalf of Republicans, Democrats or others. Hoping to educate the public about this important issue, Americans United Executive Director Barry W. Lynn wrote a letter to Jones recently and offered to travel to eastern North Carolina to debate the matter. But Jones refused. He did not have the courtesy to reply to Lynn's letter but did tell a local newspaper, "I wouldn't give him the time of day." It could be that Jones lacks confidence in the merits of his arguments. Maybe he knows that his effort to portray himself as a champion of free speech simply doesn't hold water. The mask has been ripped off the "Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act." What glares at us underneath it is an alarming effort to draft churches as cogs in a partisan political machine. Thankfully, the majority of America's religious leaders and citizens say no to that. But Dobson supports it. "Politicking" from the pulpit is what Sister Ellen denounces if you ask me. Not ministers running for office but Ministers "standing as politicians". Phrophetic? You bet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosie Posted January 9, 2005 Share Posted January 9, 2005 I go to church to hear the gospel of Jesus Christ. To find out how to get to Heaven and bring others also. In other words how to get as many poosible into the real Eternal Kingdom. Not how I can get the "right" (as in correct) candidate elected into office so he can further someone's agenda, or how to "take back America" from the gays and atheists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Shane Posted January 9, 2005 Share Posted January 9, 2005 </font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr /> I am under the impression that she is speaking of ministers using their credentials to further politics from their pulpit <hr /></blockquote><font class="post"> You mean like what she did regarding slavery and prohibtion? Sister Rosie, you are getting a little transparent. You are reading into EG White's writing what you want them to say. Her writings were not even written for that purpose. </font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr /> "Politicking" from the pulpit is what Sister Ellen denounces if you ask me. <hr /></blockquote><font class="post"> I will make sure I don't ask you since she did it herself. Quote Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosie Posted January 9, 2005 Share Posted January 9, 2005 I am under the impression that she is speaking of ministers using their credentials to further politics from their pulpit Quote: You mean like what she did regarding slavery and prohibtion? Quote: Sister Rosie, you are getting a little transparent. You are reading into EG White's writing what you want them to say. Her writings were not even written for that purpose. LOL. I am reading what common logic is appealing to my own brain and making sense esp. in context with her other writings, (one quote which you so kindly provided to the discussion). She says ministers "standing as politicians" should stand down as ministers. Perhaps we can also apply the biblical admonition of not "serving two masters" to her counsel? If you think I'm transparent, so be it. I think Dobson and his ilk are also. "Politicking" from the pulpit is what Sister Ellen denounces if you ask me. Quote: I will make sure I don't ask you since she did it herself. Was Ellen a minister? Can you provide transcripts of her making political speeches in church sermons? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Shane Posted January 9, 2005 Share Posted January 9, 2005 Sister Rosie, Ellen White told us slavery was our nation's greatest sin. Compare that to Dobson saying homosexuality or abortion being our nation's greatest sin OR Jesse Jackson saying racism is our nation's biggest sin. It is the same thing. It is politics from the pulpit. Ellen White did it. Dr. Dobson does it. Jesse Jackson does it. Pat Robertson does it. Ellen White also told us how to vote!!! God forbid <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" /> How could a prophet of God tell His people in the United States of America how to vote??? She told us to vote for prohibition even if it meant voting on Sabbath. Ellen White did exactly the same thing Jesse Jackson, Al Frankin, Dr. Dobson and Pat Robertson are doing. Exactly the same thing. </font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr /> If you think I'm transparent, so be it. I think Dobson and his ilk are also. <hr /></blockquote><font class="post"> Dr. Dobson tries to be transparent so if he is that is a good thing. Quote Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosie Posted January 9, 2005 Share Posted January 9, 2005 Shane, it's obvious we are not going to agree on this. I believe Ellen's counsel (and example) was to keep Christ first in all we do. Though she urged people vote for temperance, her pen and voice were still found to be overwhelmingly focused upon Jesus and His Kingdom. Can you honestly say the same for Dobson and Roberston? It is my main concern, (and you have not addressed this concern), that Dobson is making politics his priority at the cost of spiritual matters. I'm not the sole voice that sees this change. I receive and read Dobson's Citizen Link's daily. Very little is said about Jesus Christ. Apparantly those who listen (I do not) and air his radio programs have noticed the same. Click on the link below for the full article: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36196 Quote: Producers of the widely popular daily radio program "Focus on the Family" have pulled the show from a Columbia, S.C., Christian station after its general manager refused to air an episode he thought was too political. After airing on WMHK-FM for 24 years, the radio program hosted by author and psychologist Dr. James Dobson has been pulled effective Jan. 2, reports the Columbia State newspaper. "'Focus on the Family' seems to think the political agenda is intertwined with the spiritual agenda," Jim Marshall, the station's general manager told the daily. .... Marshall claims shows focusing on public-policy issues make some listeners uncomfortable. "We want people to feel comfortable listening to the station no matter their political affiliation," he told the paper. "We want to focus more on spiritual issues than political. All of these issues are important, but they'll never be more important than the Gospel message ." Hopefully, we can all still agree on the bolded comment above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Shane Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 </font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr /> that Dobson is making politics his priority at the cost of spiritual matters. I'm not the sole voice that sees this change. <hr /></blockquote><font class="post"> I challenge you to find someone who agrees with Dobson's politics that would voice this same opinion. It appears the only onces of this opinion are those that disagree with his politics (kind of transparent). I have no issue with pastors supporting canidates or politcal issues. I am consistant on this. I have no problem with Dr. Dobson or Jesse Jaskson supporting canidates and/or issues. However I do not believe a member of the clergy should run for office. I did not support Pat Robertson in 1988 when he ran and would not support Dr. Dobson if he ran. Quote Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicodema Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 Quote: I challenge you to find someone who agrees with Dobson's politics that would voice this same opinion. It appears the only onces of this opinion are those that disagree with his politics (kind of transparent). Oh come on now Shane, of COURSE when people agree with what someone is doing they are not going to voice an opinion in opposition to it. That's not "transparency" nor telling of any "agenda" -- it's just plain logic!! We voice agreement when we agree, we voice disagreement when we disagree. Those who agree with Dobson's politics are naturally not going to voice an opinion in opposition to what he's doing, and those who disagree with them are naturally not going to voice an opinion in support of them. It's like that with EVERYTHING in life. One does not support what one disagrees with, and one does not oppose what one agrees with. Make sense! Quote "After such knowledge, what forgiveness?" -- T.S. Eliot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Shane Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 I guess I am the exception. I am not a hypocrit. In 1988 I agreed with Pat Robertson's positions but did not support him because I didn't think a pastor should be a politician. I disagree with Jesse Jackson's positions but do not call him a heretic because he has a political agenda. However I did not support him when he ran for politcal office. You see I am consistant. These people that are against Dr. Dobson disguise themselves by saying it is because he is a pastor but really it is just that they disagree with him. Those that say they don't like to listen to Dr. Dobson's program because it is too political actually just don't like it because they disagree with him. If he was preaching politics that they agreeed with they would have no problem with him being political. Quote Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicodema Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 Quote: If he was preaching politics that they agreed with they would have no problem with him being political. You don't know that for certain though. I'm sure there are those that are opposed to him in both respects, not only because they disagree with "his brand" of politics but because they disagree with him GETTING political at all. On principle, I mean. That's what my point was. I would hardly call that hypocritical. It seems consistent to me. Quote "After such knowledge, what forgiveness?" -- T.S. Eliot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosie Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 Quote: I guess I am the exception. I am not a hypocrit. You see I am consistant. These people that are against Dr. Dobson disguise themselves by saying it is because he is a pastor but really it is just that they disagree with him. Those that say they don't like to listen to Dr. Dobson's program because it is too political actually just don't like it because they disagree with him. If he was preaching politics that they agreeed with they would have no problem with him being political. Whoa. I agree with a lot of what Dobsons says, esp. when he talks his field of expertise-the family. I agree with a lot of his issues. I do not, however, agree with his methods. I believe he should not be attempting to use the arm of the state to shove his opinions down the throats of others. You cannot enforce morality. Sure you can write about it, recommend it to everyone you come in contact with, you can pray for it, you can teach it to your children, but you cannot force it on people. He is lobbying for power, not Spirit. And that is what I have a problem with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Shane Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 </font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr /> You cannot enforce morality. <hr /></blockquote><font class="post"> Does that include the speed limit? How about tax codes? What about prosititution? Would you consider laws against rape, murder and stealing based on morality? What about environmental regulations? How about labor laws like minimum wage and overtime? You know I cannot think of one single law which is not based on morality. Even laws that permit drinking and gambling are based on morality - just not ours. Quote Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Bravus Posted January 11, 2005 Moderators Share Posted January 11, 2005 This post has no content, it's just to restore the original thread title. Not suggesting that Dobson *isn't* a man of God necessarily, but I don't think we're in any real position to judge it either way, and the retitling was a derailment... Quote Truth is important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosie Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Perhaps my point was unclear. I said: "I do not, however, agree with his (Dobson's) methods. I believe he should not be attempting to use the arm of the state to shove his opinions down the throats of others." I will try to make my statement clearer by adding 3 words in italics: "You cannot enforce your morality onto others. Sure you can write about it, recommend it to everyone you come in contact with, you can pray for it, you can teach it to your children, but you cannot force it on people." He has every right to his own moral reality, he does not have the right to use the arm of the state to make everyone else conform to his standards. Now on to enforcing morality: Quote: Does that include the speed limit? How about tax codes? What about prosititution? Would you consider laws against rape, murder and stealing based on morality? What about environmental regulations? How about labor laws like minimum wage and overtime? You know I cannot think of one single law which is not based on morality. Even laws that permit drinking and gambling are based on morality - just not ours. I think we are off on another subject above. Do you think it is right for people to enforce their moral views onto others? Take the sabbath issue. Would it be correct for SDA's to lobby for laws to have everyone else "keep" the 4th Commandment? This is a moral issue, not a legal one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil D Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Quote: You know I cannot think of one single law which is not based on morality. Even laws that permit drinking and gambling are based on morality - just not ours. Even the speed limit is a moral issue? [:"green"] morals : Rules or habits of conduct, especially of sexual conduct, with reference to standards of right and wrong: a person of loose morals; a decline in the public morals. [/] Driving is a privilage granted by society, not a moral issue. Behaving/driving responsibly is not an issue of right or wrong, but rather in a mannor that is congruent within the privileges of granted by that society. Quote Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve.  George Bernard Shaw  Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Shane Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 Yes the speed limit is a morality issue. It is about the sactity of life. Now someone that favors ripping babies out of mothers' wombs to do stem cell research on them might not be able to grasp that. However controling the speed on our streets and highways has a direct impact on how many people die on our streets and highways. It is an issue of morality. Now some in the pro-choice crowd may say every driver should be able to choose how fast they go. They may say the pro-life crowd has no right to force their morality on others by limiting the speed one can travel on a city street or state highway. However pro-lifers will say we must value the human life and therefore limit the speed allowed to drive on our streets and highways. Every law is based on someone's morality. The Supreme Court decided that the Mormons couldn't have more than one wife at a time because to allow such would disrupt society too much. They clearly forced the Mormons to abide by Protestant/Catholic/Jewish morality. The Adventist position is this: The civil government has the right to regulate behavior between man and his fellowman. They do not have the right to regulate behavior between man and his God. The fact is that the Adventist church doesn't have a problem with Sunday-closing laws as long as we are still allow to keep Saturday holy. When the government forbids us (or any group) from practicing their religion, that is when it has overstepped its bounds. The morality government cannot enforce is the behavior between the idividual and God not the behavior between two individuals. Quote Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicodema Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 Shane, most people don't share your view that common laws for the civil good constitute "morality" in the same sense that personal and/or religious values do. I know I don't. There is NOT, to me, a direct correlation between the two simply -- to borrow from the illustration you used -- because in the case of the driver on the road, these rules are needed to keep many drivers from colliding dangerously and fatally with one another, whereas what day someone worships on, whom someone worships, or the persons or manners in which one chooses to have sexual relations is none of my business and laws are not needed there to protect me from them or them from me -- EXCEPT, ironically, that laws must fastidiously refrain from intruding there precisely TO protect us from one another -- that is, protect me from having another's ways forced on me and protect them from having my ways forced on them. The two categories simply are not the same, and never will be. No matter how much you want to insist otherwise. There's a dividing line there. It might be a little fuzzy for some exactly where to draw it, but there's still one there nonetheless. I believe it has something to do with consensuality and whether or not the matter at issue is one which involves a victim. For example, smoking pot in the privacy of my living room (I don't -- just using it as an example!) is a 'victimless crime' as it harms no one else, while smoking pot and then operating a large truck is definitely something more legitimately actionable by law since that action directly affects the safety of others. Quote "After such knowledge, what forgiveness?" -- T.S. Eliot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Shane Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 </font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr /> Shane, most people don't share your view <hr /></blockquote><font class="post"> How would you possibly know that? </font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr /> these rules are needed to keep many drivers from colliding dangerously and fatally with one another <hr /></blockquote><font class="post"> And why would anyone care if there were automotive fatalities unless one of our moral values is to place a high value on human life? </font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr /> smoking pot in the privacy of my living room... is a 'victimless crime' <hr /></blockquote><font class="post"> Tell that to the chief of police's family in Reynosa Mexico who was just tortured and shot in the face 9 times last week by Mexican drug lords. Just because you don't see the victems don't mean they don't exist. When all is said, done and known, we discover God is right. There is no such thing as a victemless sin. We, as society, just have to decide which sins create victems in such a way that they require laws to be passed. For example, lying is a sin so should it be illegal? Well, as a society, we believe that some lies should be illegal because of the impact they have on their victems and other lies shouldn't be illegal. So we make purgery, fraud and slander illegal but allow a man to lie to his wife about how much he spent at the bar. Quote Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicodema Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 Quote: Quote: Shane, most people don't share your view How would you possibly know that? You're right - I don't know that. My bad. It's possible such a thing COULD be known, if there are research and/or statistics out there to demonstrate it, but currently I am not in possession of that knowledge. I should have simply said, "I do not share your view" on that, at least, unless or until I have actual knowledge that would substantiate saying "most ... don't". Quote "After such knowledge, what forgiveness?" -- T.S. Eliot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Bravus Posted January 12, 2005 Moderators Share Posted January 12, 2005 But of course, with legal drugs the chief of police's family would have been completely safe, so you could say they're victims of the law, not the drug... Quote Truth is important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicodema Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 Quote: Quote: smoking pot in the privacy of my living room... is a 'victimless crime' Tell that to the chief of police's family in Reynosa Mexico who was just tortured and shot in the face 9 times last week by Mexican drug lords. Just because you don't see the victems don't mean they don't exist. We've had that same argument about abortion and other things. The bottom line for me is this: it comes down to where we want to draw lines dividing boundaries of responsibility. The item you mention above is one of those examples. It is very similar in nature to being a responsible consumer and knowing how your favorite sneakers actually get made (who is getting exploited) or what other ties a corporation has, etc. There is only so far an individual can go and beyond that, it becomes someone else's responsibility. Case in point: if I want to purchase a pair of shoes from a reputable company that does not exploit its workers nor harm the environment, I cannot be expected to be responsible for the fact that said company has its factory doors open on Sabbath. At some point it becomes someone else's responsibility. Ultimately if you are going to argue that as a pot consumer one would have a duty to be aware of the ethics of those involved in supplying his product, you are basically implying that duty as a consumer is incumbent upon us all for legit purchases, not just contraband. In which case legit corporations must be held to an even higher ethical standard than freelancers in the underground market are to be. It applies to more than just black market trade. But I'm not here to argue the ethics of any specific case with you or anyone else because two things apply here: (1) there is no "one size fits all" and (2) the bottom line is that at some point in ALL interwoven states of human affairs, my responsibility ends and someone else's begins. I can only (hope to, be expected to) control my own actions; therefore I can only be held responsible for my own actions. I cannot control someone else's actions; therefore only they may be held responsible for theirs. So once again we are back to the victimlessness of someone smoking pot in their living room versus the potential victimization of others involved in smoking pot then operating a big rig or driving a bus. This IS, in fact, where society tends to draw the line. Quote: When all is said, done and known, we discover God is right. There is no such thing as a victemless sin. We, as society, just have to decide which sins create victems in such a way that they require laws to be passed. Exactly so -- and therefore as a society we have determined that things the entire society does not agree upon as "sin" to begin with is a good place to start looking for things that don't benefit from -- and may actually be harmed by -- legal interference. Most of our laws are based on those values we DO commonly share -- such as thieving being wrong (unless you're a corporation or a government agency, of course), assault and murder being wrong (unless you wear a military suit and are commanded by someone who can send you to jail for life if you disobey), rape being wrong (unless the victim in question was known to be promiscuous, then of course, she's not ALLOWED to say no), etc. Yes, what a lovely collective value set we share. Quote: Well, as a society, we believe that some lies should be illegal because of the impact they have on their victems and other lies shouldn't be illegal. So we make purgery, fraud and slander illegal but allow a man to lie to his wife about how much he spent at the bar. Right, and we can debate endlessly about how this applies to other areas of life that are typically deemed "morality" areas and/or typically referred to as "legalizing morality" or "enforcing your morality on others". But we will never get anywhere if you keep picking this semantic nit over the use of the word morality this way. Quote "After such knowledge, what forgiveness?" -- T.S. Eliot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Shane Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 </font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr /> with legal drugs the chief of police's family would have been completely safe, so you could say they're victims of the law, not the drug... <hr /></blockquote><font class="post"> That is very twisted logic, Brother Bravus. He was not a victem of the very law he gave his life to defend. Sin always has consequences and there are no exceptions. Sin is the problem, not the law that makes it sin. Quote Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.