It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by ballsdeep
p.s. I put the important parts in bold for you.
Okay, if you really insist on using that definition...
Why do we even need governments? Police forces? Jails? Laws protecting our freedoms or governing everyday life?
Because the human nature to rebel is intrinsic to all of us. To violate the laws, to steal, to murder, the cheat people out of goods, property, or money. We have to have all these controlling entities in our lives BECAUSE our our natures to rebel and sin.
But, again, I see "governments" and "God" as two completely different things. When we rebel against governments or laws we get fines or a little jail time. Rebellion against God got us a share in the Hell that was created for the devil and the other fallen angels.
The mention of Government (an example; not defining) in the definition is arbitrary to both of us.
The mention of Government (an example; not defining) in the definition is arbitrary to both of us.
The mention of Government (an example; not defining) in the definition is arbitrary to both of us.
The mention of Government (an example; not defining) in the definition is arbitrary to both of us.
The mention of Government (an example; not defining) in the definition is arbitrary to both of us.
The mention of Government (an example; not defining) in the definition is arbitrary to both of us.
The mention of Government (an example; not defining) in the definition is arbitrary to both of us.
The mention of Government (an example; not defining) in the definition is arbitrary to both of us.
The mention of Government (an example; not defining) in the definition is arbitrary to both of us.
Well you talked about disobedient offspring and went on to say that rebellion is "our problem"; I fail to see the likeness between a pair of human parents and "the sovereign God Almighy".
No followers of Christ's word are likely to "rebel" against it, nor is it rebellion when somebody who is dismissive or ignorant of Christ's word acts in disaccord of it.
Well you talked about disobedient offspring and went on to say that rebellion is "our problem"; I fail to see the likeness between a pair of human parents and "the sovereign God Almighy".
No followers of Christ's word are likely to "rebel" against it, nor is it rebellion when somebody who is dismissive or ignorant of Christ's word acts in disaccord of it.
Well you talked about disobedient offspring and went on to say that rebellion is "our problem"; I fail to see the likeness between a pair of human parents and "the sovereign God Almighy".
No followers of Christ's word are likely to "rebel" against it, nor is it rebellion when somebody who is dismissive or ignorant of Christ's word acts in disaccord of it.
Well you talked about disobedient offspring and went on to say that rebellion is "our problem"; I fail to see the likeness between a pair of human parents and "the sovereign God Almighy".
No followers of Christ's word are likely to "rebel" against it, nor is it rebellion when somebody who is dismissive or ignorant of Christ's word acts in disaccord of it.
Well you talked about disobedient offspring and went on to say that rebellion is "our problem"; I fail to see the likeness between a pair of human parents and "the sovereign God Almighy".
No followers of Christ's word are likely to "rebel" against it, nor is it rebellion when somebody who is dismissive or ignorant of Christ's word acts in disaccord of it.
Well you talked about disobedient offspring and went on to say that rebellion is "our problem"; I fail to see the likeness between a pair of human parents and "the sovereign God Almighy".
No followers of Christ's word are likely to "rebel" against it, nor is it rebellion when somebody who is dismissive or ignorant of Christ's word acts in disaccord of it.
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by ballsdeep
Then you are short sighted. If you had the chance to kill a person who is about to spill the blood of not millions, not billions, but just two people...what would you do? You'd let them die? You would actively allow their death? That would make you as guilty for their death as the murderer, as you were the one who allowed it to happen.
If you are in a position where you have the opportunity to prevent the death of an individual who you are certain will kill another, you are obligated to stop them by any means possible. Ideally this would mean restraining them...but it's not always such an easy option in this crazy world of ours.
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by ballsdeep
How are billions lives inconsequential? That is frankly the most arrogant thing I've ever heard. Each of those lives is as valuable as your own. Their annihilation at the hands of another would be a far greater evil than the burden of having to carry a single life on your shoulders.
But I guess you'd rather go for the easier option and let yourself off the hook.