Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Forcing boy to get chemo


Recommended Posts

  • Administrators

Actually, pt, you are wrong there - many states allow children to decide which parent to live with at age 13, some at 16, some not at all. Here in Indiana, children may inform the judge, but the judge decides.

The law? The law is fallible, and makes many mistakes. One of these days you will realize this - hopefully you will not be one who loses their child because you are teaching them the Bible, or perhaps not allowing them to watch tv, or maybe letting them watch too much...See, it becomes very subjective. (oh, and don't think for a minute I'm making it up = the tv examples are on a list of things to look for in so-called abusive situations). Subjectivity is the exact reason the parents are to make the decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 157
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members
Actually, pt, you are wrong there - many states allow children to decide which parent to live with at age 13, some at 16, some not at all. Here in Indiana, children may inform the judge, but the judge decides.

The law? The law is fallible, and makes many mistakes. One of these days you will realize this - hopefully you will not be one who loses their child because you are teaching them the Bible, or perhaps not allowing them to watch tv, or maybe letting them watch too much...See, it becomes very subjective. (oh, and don't think for a minute I'm making it up = the tv examples are on a list of things to look for in so-called abusive situations). Subjectivity is the exact reason the parents are to make the decision.


:eek Boy, maybe we shouldn't have sold our TV's when we moved!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators


:eek Boy, maybe we shouldn't have sold our TV's when we moved!

Oh, hey - also on the list is: are the kids too dirty? are they too clean? :loco "Abuse" is totally subjective, and any social worker who wants to can make whatever accusation and it will be effective. Kids will be taken (and are, every day) who don't need to be...and put in foster homes where the foster parents will truly abuse them all the while being paid by the government...I've known kids in that situation. It's heartbreaking and ought to be against the law...but the government has so much common sense and regular joes don't, so they are above the law - in this so-called republic, in which all are supposed to be held to the same law.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Actually, pt, you are wrong there - many states allow children to decide which parent to live with at age 13, some at 16, some not at all. Here in Indiana, children may inform the judge, but the judge decides.

The law? The law is fallible, and makes many mistakes. One of these days you will realize this - hopefully you will not be one who loses their child because you are teaching them the Bible, or perhaps not allowing them to watch tv, or maybe letting them watch too much...See, it becomes very subjective. (oh, and don't think for a minute I'm making it up = the tv examples are on a list of things to look for in so-called abusive situations). Subjectivity is the exact reason the parents are to make the decision.


I don't know of a single state that allows a child to decide which parent they will live with. The judge may take their preference into consideration, but that decision is for the law to decide, not the child. I'll agree that the law is not perfect, but until it is changed, it is still the law and the law is supreme.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
I don't know of a single state that allows a child to decide which parent they will live with. The judge may take their preference into consideration' date=' but that decision is for the law to decide, not the child. I'll agree that the law is not perfect, but until it is changed, it is still the law and the law is supreme.[/quote']

A little off point, but at what point should we disregard the law?

For example, let's say your state begins paying for abortions for anyone who wants them. Is it moral for you to pay taxes that supports such a government?

What if our government began committing genocide? Should we pay our taxes and obey the laws then?

It is an important question. I'm not advocating disobeying law. Don't get me wrong. But at some point, IF the government is involved in something that goes very strongly against your morals, at what point do we participate in civil disobedience?

I think at some point, it becomes justified (not required, but justified).

The law is not to be followed unquestioningly. The law is not supreme. At some point, the people have a right to take back a government if the government disregards the people. That is what happened wiht the American Revolution. It can happen again. We are nowhere near that In my opinion, but I'm just saying.....the law is not supreme, because it comes form the people.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators


I don't know of a single state that allows a child to decide which parent they will live with. The judge may take their preference into consideration, but that decision is for the law to decide, not the child. I'll agree that the law is not perfect, but until it is changed, it is still the law and the law is supreme.


Check out Washington State, my friend. Precedent has even been set that 13 year olds can "divorce" their parents if THEY choose.

Good points, kind.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members


A little off point, but at what point should we disregard the law?

For example, let's say your state begins paying for abortions for anyone who wants them. Is it moral for you to pay taxes that supports such a government?

What if our government began committing genocide? Should we pay our taxes and obey the laws then?



What if our government made it law to coral all persons of Jewish descent and then legal orders from a judge were carried out to kill them via gas chamber? Is the law still supreme?

Don't tell me it's a ridiculous example, as it has already happened to 6 or 7 million of my fellow humans.....a little war was fought over it....perhaps we were wrong to go against the German law.....
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members



Yes. You should. Until the government asks you to commit genocide, an abortion, or any other immoral act, you must obey tax laws and other laws.


I have to disagree here. What would have happened if the church in Germany had stood up to Hitler? Sadly, we will never know.

If we pay to support such a government, are we not doing the act itself? If I hire a hitman to kill someone, I still kill them. If I pay the government to perform an immoral deed, am I not as guilty as the government?

Were the early colonialists in America wrong for refusing to pay taxes to Britain?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Jesus said render to Ceasar what is Ceasers. To me this mean pay the tax to the government. The Romans were much worse than the U.S is now' date=' but we are getting there.[/quote']

But at what point does the government beocme illegitimate? If the government stops listening to the people and not representing the interest of the people, then is the government really a government? If the government abuses its power in terrible ways that are horribly inhumane such as genocide, do we not support that policy and are guilty of murder by supporting a government carrying out these actions?

How are we not guilty if our money is paid to further an immoral purpose? If the government murders, and we pay for the government to murder and do nothing to stop it, how can God not view us as guilty as well?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

We can preach the gospel. I see this as the only way. Making laws and being lied to by politicins hasn't worked. Change one person at a time. :hijack: Now to the thread. I don't know I am fence straddling on this issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

[offtopic]Jesus said to render unto Ceasar - He was in a government ruled by an emporer. We are in a republic: We the People are Ceasar. My money doesn't BELONG to the government. There are certain taxes that are Constitutional - Income taxes are not. Congress has power to levy taxes - not an independent taxing arm like the IRS. That's just my input...we do pay taxes. If we didn't, we could go to jail. Isn't that amazing and amusing? According to the IRS yellow book paying taxes is voluntary. Just try to volunteer not to pay.[/offtopic]


How are we not guilty if our money is paid to further an immoral purpose? If the government murders, and we pay for the government to murder and do nothing to stop it, how can God not view us as guilty as well?

That is a conundrum, kind, that really, truly bothers me!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members


I have to disagree here. What would have happened if the church in Germany had stood up to Hitler? Sadly, we will never know.

If we pay to support such a government, are we not doing the act itself? If I hire a hitman to kill someone, I still kill them. If I pay the government to perform an immoral deed, am I not as guilty as the government?

Were the early colonialists in America wrong for refusing to pay taxes to Britain?


You are not guilty of things you do not intend to do. If you own a business and someone comes and works for you and you pay them, then that person uses the money you pay them to buy drugs, are you breaking the law? The same principle applies to the government. We pay taxes to support our government. When you write your income tax check, you don't apportion $5,000 for abortions, $10,000.00 for nuclear development . . . You just write a check and rely on your elected officials to act in your best interest. You are in fact paying the government to work for you. If the government then takes that money and uses it for immoral/illegal purposes, you are not held responsible because that was not what you intended to be done with the money.

You are judged by the content of your heart, not the uninteded results of your actions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members


In your example, the employee on his own time does not represent me. However, the government reprsents the people. The government acts for the people. If it then engages in terrible attrocities (such as Sadaam Hussein, Hitler, and others), how do the citizens of the country not have an obligation to stand up and try to stop it when they can feasibly do so?

If I send money to a non profit organization who pays for women to abort their children, how am I not guilty of aborting the child? If I hire a hitman, how am I not guilty of the murder? If I send taxes to a government engages in terrible attrocities such as genocide, how am I not guilty of genocide?

All I am saying is at some point, the government ceases representing the people, and there are times in history where resising such a regime is appropriate and good. There is a point when the citizens are responsible for the actions fo the government if they do nothing about it.

Right now in the US, we can fight within the system and get things done. It is difficult, but it can be done. What would happen if those channels were cut off and we could not work within the system to change it? Is that not the point at which civil disobedience is justified, and perhaps even necessary? At some point, a government gets to where it no longer respresents the people, and at that point, the people are justified in overthrowing it, not paying their taxes, and setting up a new government. This is how our country was born. It happened in history before, it can happen again.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...