Fighting for Free Speech Do…
Not Let Your Enemy Take Advantage of You ,Some Situations May Call for Self-Defense, but Not Retaliation in Kind…
The proper use of self-defense has to do with wisdom, understanding, and tact. In Luke 22:36, Jesus tells His remaining disciples, “If you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.” Jesus knew that now was the time when His followers would be threatened, and He upheld their right to self-defense. Just a short time later, Jesus is arrested, and Peter takes a sword and cuts off someone’s ear. Jesus rebukes Peter for that act (verses 49–51). Why? In his zeal to defend the Lord, Peter was standing in the way of God’s will. Jesus had told His disciples multiple times that He must be arrested, put on trial, and die (e.g., Matthew 17:22–23). In other words, Peter acted unwisely in that situation. We must have wisdom regarding when to fight and when not to.
Exodus 22 gives some clues about God’s attitude toward self-defense: “If a thief is caught breaking in at night and is struck a fatal blow, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; but if it happens after sunrise, the defender is guilty of bloodshed” (Exodus 22:2–3). Two basic principles taught in this text are the right to own private property and the right to defend that property. The full exercise of the right to self-defense, however, depended on the situation. No one should be too quick to use deadly force against another, even someone who means to do him harm. If someone was set upon by a thief in the middle of the night and, in the confusion of the moment the would-be thief was killed, the Law did not charge the homeowner with murder. But, if the thief was caught in the house during the day, when the homeowner was unlikely to be awoken from sleep, then the Law forbade the killing of the thief. Essentially, the Law said that homeowners shouldn’t be quick to kill or attack thieves in their home. Both situations could be considered self-defense, but deadly force was expected to be a last resort, used only in the event of a panicked “surprise attack” scenario where the homeowner is likely to be confused and disoriented. In the case of a nighttime attack, the Law granted the homeowner the benefit of the doubt that, apart from the darkness and confusion of the attack, he would not intentionally use lethal force against a thief. Even in the case of self-defense against a thief, a godly person was expected to try to restrain the assailant rather than immediately resort to killing him.
Liberals, having lost the battle of ideas because their crummy, corrupt collectivist ideas suck, want to ban our ideas because people are naturally going to choose our ideas over theirs. Well, normal people are, because we know we would pick up the tab for their Utopia. The thing about leftists is that their ideas about the need for command and control over every aspect of human life always presume they will be the ones personally commanding and controlling. You will never meet a young socialist who looks forward to a proletarian career picking up garbage or cleaning toilets.
Freedom of speech is defined by Webster’s dictionary as “the right to express facts and opinions subject only to reasonable limitations (as the power of the government to protect itself from a clear and present danger) guaranteed by the 1st and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution and similar provisions of some state constitutions.” Freedom of speech, according to this definition, is a right given to the citizens of the United States by law. In that sense, freedom of speech is not a biblical concept but a political one specific to a certain time and place in history.
The founders of the United States believed that mankind has certain “inalienable rights” including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under that umbrella of liberty falls freedom of speech. Thomas Jefferson spoke of these rights as having been endowed to man by his Creator; he called the right to liberty “inherent” and postulated that governments are instituted in order to allow man (the governed) to secure those rights and to pursue his rights freely. The liberty and consent of the governed were, in Jefferson’s mind, imperative for governments to be efficient and beneficial.
In Britain, you can be arrested for tweeting things, which is yet another cautionary example of why we citizens should never, ever give up our guns.
They want to take guns away from people so patriots have no way to resist the left’s increasingly totalitarian government. Liberals pretend not to know history, but they know that this country won its independence in large part thanks to guns. They don’t want another repeat of that, overthrowing the type of government they are creating. Controlling all speech – and therefore all thought .Source
The idea that the Creator has endowed us with the right to liberty is debatable, but it is true that God created man with a free will. Adam and Eve had the liberty to partake of any fruit in the garden (except one), and they even had the liberty to disobey. God created man to serve Him, to know Him, and to enjoy Him forever in eternity, so liberty within the bounds of righteousness is certainly a biblical ideal. Christians believe that serving God and enjoying a relationship with Him is the ultimate liberty. The ultimate freedom is found in belonging to Christ (Galatians 5:1; 2 Corinthians 3:17). Sin brings bondage (Romans 7:14), but the one who belongs to Christ is spiritually free (Romans 8:2).
But does that spiritual freedom from sin entail political freedom of speech? Perhaps not directly, but speaking the truth in love is a biblical mandate (Ephesians 4:15). Therefore, any government law that guarantees citizens the right to speak the truth aligns with godly principles. By the same token, any law that suppresses a person’s right to speak truth is working against God’s command. Freedom of speech does not guarantee that truth is told, of course, but it does permit it to be told. In the final analysis, there is no conflict between biblical principles and the civic principle of freedom of speech.
Critics of Christianity have become more vocal recently. This is partly because there are many people who do not believe in God or understand the truth about Him at all. Yet the apparent increase of anti-Christians is also due to perception. As with many topics, those who truly despise Christianity are the loudest and most vocal of the non-believers. The vast majority of those who do not believe don’t care enough to bother believers. The few angry, vocal, bitter unbelievers make enough noise to seem more numerous than they are.
Liberals want to stomp out the Christian religion because they have a guilty conscience about all their sinning. It has nothing to do with the First Amendment, because they’ve removed Christianity so much from the public sphere there is little risk of government establishing a state religion anymore. Instead, it’s all about eliminating those pesky little reminders everywhere throughout society that tells them their immoral actions aren’t leading to good.
The typical insult from the non-religious crowd is to refer to believers as “ignorant,” “stupid,” “brainwashed,” or to otherwise suggest that those who have faith are less intelligent than those who do not. When a Christian stands up intelligently for his faith, the terms change to “bigot,” “extremist,” or “zealot.” When people who know that the believer is kind and loving hear this, the atheist starts to look like the fool that he or she is (Psalm 53:1). Most non-believers have no personal reason to see Christians negatively, but they sometimes hear so much from the loud anti-Christians that they just assume it is so. They need examples of Christ-like living to see the truth.
Liberals prefer excessive government regulation because they are attracted to government bureaucrat jobs, and they think they’re superior to everyone else and should make all the rules.
They want to teach young children sex education in grade school so they feel better about themselves being promiscuous if everyone else is too.
Of course, when someone claiming to be a Christian says or does something that is not Christ-like, the angry, loud crowd is there to identify him as a typical religious hypocrite. This is something we have been warned to expect (Romans 1:28-30; Matthew 5:11). The best thing to do is to cite a passage of the Bible that speaks against what the person did. And remind the atheists that just because a person says he is a Christian, and even if he thinks he is a Christian, that does not mean that he is. Matthew 7:16,20 tell us that true Christians will be known by their actions, not merely by their profession. And remind critics that absolutely no one lives without sinning at all (Romans 3:23).
An important thing to remember is that no one, no matter how persuasive, can force anyone to believe anything he doesn’t want to believe. No matter what the evidence, no matter what the argument, people will believe what they want to believe (Luke 12:54-56). Conviction is not a Christian’s job. The Holy Spirit convicts people (John 14:16-17), and they choose whether or not to believe. What we can do is present ourselves in a way that is as Christ-like as possible. It is sad that there are many atheists who have read the entire Bible looking for ammunition against Christians, and that there are many Christians who have hardly read the Bible at all.
It’s hard for the angry crowd to accuse a Christian of being a hateful, cruel bigot when that person demonstrates a life of kindness, humility, and compassion. When a Christian can discuss, debate or debunk secular arguments accurately, the label of “ignorant” no longer fits. A Christian who has read the secular arguments and can politely expose their flaws helps to deflate the stereotypes advanced by atheists. Knowledge is the weapon, and it is invincible when we let Christ direct us in how to use it.
It is impossible to find anyone in the Bible who was a power for God who did not have enemies and was not hated.
“Pedophile priests” have reverberated throughout America. But beneath our anger and revulsion, a fundamental question pulsates: Are those who abuse their positions of trust to prey upon children—a category certainly not limited to those in religious orders—sick … or are they evil? We need the answer to that fundamental question. Because, without the truth, we cannot act. And until we act, nothing will change.
My job is protecting children. It has taken me from big cities to rural outposts, from ghettos to penthouses, and from courtrooms to genocidal battlefields. But whatever the venue, the truth remains constant: Some humans intentionally hurt children. They commit unspeakable acts—for their pleasure, their profit, or both.
#Antichrist #evildoers #suppressingtruth #birthpains #tribulation #sevenyears #hellonearth #those that have ears, let him hear, those that have eyes let them see!
MY MISSION IS NOT TO CONVINCE YOU, ONLY TO INFORM…
The number of Orphans aging out of Child Protective Custody has grown at an alarming rate. The 127 Faith Foundation receives many requests each week to house them at our ranch. Our prayer is that the good people of our country will step up to the challenge and offer financial support for "the least among us." We need your help! StevieRay Hansen, Founder, The 127 Faith Foundation
We make every effort to acknowledge sources used in our news articles. In a few cases, the sources were lost due to a technological glitch. If you believe we have not given sufficient credit for your source material, please contact us, and we will be more than happy to link to your article.