We Need the Police Because...

[pcosmar]

Well, that's an interesting line of reasoning. Do you own a gun, pcosmar? If you do, then let me ask you, "Are you afraid of anything enough to pay men for protection? Really?"

I do not own a gun.

I am a Prohibited Person. I am something that should not exist in a free society.. and yet i am.

care to discuss that further,,? with someone that understands the nature of authority.

I do not serve the Prince of this World.. therefor I reject that authority over me.. Would you care to discuss that proposition?

I know what is unseen around me and do not fear death,, No I don't own a gun.
And though I appreciate the aid of other men, I neither need nor require it.

 

[Theocrat]

Protect Yourself Before You Wreck Yourself

I do not own a gun.

I am a Prohibited Person. I am something that should not exist in a free society.. and yet i am.

care to discuss that further,,? with someone that understands the nature of authority.

I do not serve the Prince of this World.. therefor I reject that authority over me.. Would you care to discuss that proposition?

I know what is unseen around me and do not fear death,, No I don't own a gun.
And though I appreciate the aid of other men, I neither need nor require it.

Okay. It's fine that you don't own a gun, but don't think that because I believe in paying for protection through certain means (like owning a gun or having police) that it means my God is weak or that I'm afraid of anything. Because we live in a sinful world, we have to arm ourselves for protection against people who have no moral nor civil restraints on their own behavior. So, it's wise to have those means of protection.

 

[pcosmar]

Okay. It's fine that you don't own a gun, but don't think that because I believe in paying for protection through certain means (like owning a gun or having police) that it means my God is weak or that I'm afraid of anything. Because we live in a sinful world, we have to arm ourselves for protection against people who have no moral nor civil restraints on their own behavior. So, it's wise to have those means of protection.

I am not opposed to such. (self defense, defense of others),and scripture supports such done of good intent. (God looks on the heart).

I am opposed to armed enforcers of someone else's will. And That is by definition what Police are.

They are enforcers of control.
in this world,, the authority is the prince of this world.

I await an end to it.

 

[pcosmar]

Why do I need to be protected?


who would I fear? why would i fear?

Is fear a spiritual Being? is the spirit of fear something I should fear?

 

[pcosmar]

Protect Yourself Before You Wreck Yourself

LOL,,

you haven't been keeping up.

I know where i am. and who put me here.

Then Elisha prayed and said, "O LORD, I pray, open his eyes that he may see." And the LORD opened the servant's eyes and he saw; and behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire all around Elisha.

 

[pcosmar]

I know where i am. and who put me here.

now tell me [MENTION=4634]Theocrat[/MENTION] , Why do I need Police?

 

[Theocrat]

All Police are "Of Someone Else's Will"

I am not opposed to such. (self defense, defense of others),and scripture supports such done of good intent. (God looks on the heart).

I am opposed to armed enforcers of someone else's will. And That is by definition what Police are.

They are enforcers of control.
in this world,, the authority is the prince of this world.

I await an end to it.

Pcosmar, you're just stating the obvious when you say, "I am opposed to armed enforcers of someone else's will. And That is by definition what Police are." Of course, any law enforcement agency (whether it's private or public) enforces laws that did not originate from inside itself. Therefore, one important issue is whether those laws (or the people who produced them, perhaps), are just, right, proper, etc. or not. Another important issue is whether the law enforcement agency, itself, is enforcing laws in a righteous manner or not (which begs the question, "By what authority," of course).

So, you can't say that policing, as an institution (or means of protection and preservation), is evil in and of itself. That's committing the fallacy of reification. But, also important is to realize that policing is an inevitability. We all do it, in some area of our lives. It can be through (though not limited to) parenting or conscientious moral restraint.

But I agree that in civics, we should focus on how policing is taking place, as well as why policing is taking place.

 

[pcosmar]

Pcosmar, you're just stating the obvious when you say, "I am opposed to armed enforcers of someone else's will. And That is by definition what Police are." Of course, any law enforcement agency (whether it's private or public) enforces laws that did not originate from inside itself. Therefore, one important issue is whether those laws (or the people who produced them, perhaps), are just, right, proper, etc. or not. Another important issue is whether the law enforcement agency, itself, is enforcing laws in a righteous manner or not (which begs the question, "By what authority," of course).

So, you can't say that policing, as an institution (or means of protection and preservation), is evil in and of itself. That's committing the fallacy of reification. But, also important is to realize that policing is an inevitability. We all do it, in some area of our lives. It can be through (though not limited to) parenting or conscientious moral restraint.

But I agree that in civics, we should focus on how policing is taking place, as well as why policing is taking place.

Controlling people is evil.

what do you mean I can't say it.

Government is evil. It is controlled by satan. it is totally evil from inception. The founders knew this.
They also understood that government was reality. a necessity. but that it must be limited.
They placed limits on government (not enough apparently)

There were NO Police.

That was not a concept present at the time. it was imported from Europe along with democracy and socialism. It was a remnant of aristocracy and authoritarianism..

The idea that people NEED to be controlled,,and that some people are worthy of doing so.

 

[Theocrat]

Some Control is Necessary

Controlling people is evil.

what do you mean I can't say it.

Government is evil. It is controlled by satan. it is totally evil from inception. The founders knew this.
They also understood that government was reality. a necessity. but that it must be limited.
They placed limits on government (not enough apparently)

There were NO Police.

That was not a concept present at the time. it was imported from Europe along with democracy and socialism. It was a remnant of aristocracy and authoritarianism..

The idea that people NEED to be controlled,,and that some people are worthy of doing so.

Lest I be misunderstood, let me say that I don't agree that police have the authority to control people, when those people are acting righteously in society. The role of law enforcement is to control the behavior of those who choose to live in society without moral and civil restraints towards other people.

When the police begins to treat civilly innocent people the same as civilly guilty people by controlling their behavior though invasion of property or by inadvertent loss of life, then I would say that the police agents are acting unjustly and need to be held accountable. But that doesn't mean that the institution of police, itself, is evil.

"Government is evil," "It's controlled by Satan," blah, blah, blah, the same talking points that have been proven false over and over again, I'm not even going to have an argument about. It's not germane to the topic at hand, anyway.

 

[pcosmar]

"Government is evil," "It's controlled by Satan," blah, blah, blah,

The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world. And he said to him, “I will give you all their authority and splendor; it has been given to me, and I can give it to anyone I want to. If you worship me, it will all be yours.”

Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.

Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world; if it were, My servants would fight to prevent My arrest by the Jews. But now, My kingdom is not of this realm.” “Then You are a king?” Pilate said. “You say that I am a king,” Jesus answered. “For this reason I was born and have come into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to My voice.”…

yeah ,, bla bla

let him who has ears

 

[pcosmar]

And to keep it out of another sub forum,, and on subject.

http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

Still good after all these years.

 

[Natural Citizen]

He's also sovereign enough to use ordinary means (like weapons) as instruments for deterring evil, provided that we keep our faith in Him and not the object, itself. That's what God reminds us to do in Scriptures like:

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses, but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. [Psalm 20:7]

I don't think that means what you think it does. The part I boldened there, I mean. That's just me talking, though, Theo.

Here is what I would do. If it were me. Which it isn't. But if it were, I'd read that scripture and compare it to what you led into it with (again, what I boldened there). Think about it, man. I mean reaaaaaally think about what you say here in context with the actual scripture.

It seems to me that "some" and "we" are mutually exclusive to one another in the context of the scripture itself. And for good reason.

If I recall right, God wouldn't even let Israel have horses. Or am I wrong about that? Am I wrong, Theo?

Let's review. Maybe I'm wrong.

"But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the Lord hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way" (Deut. 17:16).

"When thou goest out to battle against thine enemies, and seest horses, and chariots, and a people more than thou, be not afraid of them: for the Lord thy God is with thee, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. ... For the Lord your God is he that goeth with you, to fight for you against your enemies, to save you" (Deut. 20:1, 4).

So, then, it seems to me that God is saying to have faith in Him alone. I mean, sht, Theo, He specifically took their danged horses and weapons away. Right? Or naw? Did he let em have their horses and whatnot and maybe I missed that part? You just got done quoting that..."Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the Lord our God. (Ps. 20:7-8)...which actually continues...although, you stopped prior to..."They are brought down and fallen: but we are risen, and stand upright."

But God forbid the Israelites from having horses. God wanted Israel to trust in Him, not horses and chariots.

So, yeah. I think that your thought leading into the scripture that you referenced actually contradicts the scripture itself, Theo. It seems to me that if people put their faith in their chariots, then, they are effectively placing their faith in man. In man's enginuity. Not God.

“Some trust in chariots” (Ps. 20:7). Right?

Ultimately, and with all of that said, the discussion (per the topic specifically and particularly the context of your question to pcosmar about if he has a gun or not when you were making a case for moral judgment to be made by the police/government) should move in the direction of just who is the moral authority. Is it Man-over-God or God-over-Man? The way you led into that scripture that you referenced would tend to stimulate a Man-over-God scenario. God doesn't use worldly weapons. Man does. Man builds them. And man is confident in his weapons. Now, God did breath life into the horse. I'll grant you that. But God didn't saddle the feller up and hop on it with a sword and a flag or whatever. Man did that. These are specifically made mutually exclusive in the scripture you posted to support your claim.


If I'm wrong, then, please educate me. I like to learn. It's one of my favorite things to do. But...when you mention that...

He's also sovereign enough to use ordinary means (like weapons) as instruments for deterring evil, provided that we keep our faith in Him and not the object, itself

it doesn't make sense with the specific scripture you posted in order to support your claim since God told them that they couldn't have any horses at all. Nope. No weapons. Only faith in God alone. So, it seems like you'vr produced a logical fallacy to me.

 

[Theocrat]

Have You Not Read?

I don't think that means what you think it does. The part I boldened there, I mean. That's just me talking, though, Theo.

Here is what I would do. If it were me. Which it isn't. But if it were, I'd read that scripture and compare it to what you led into it with (again, what I boldened there). Think about it, man. I mean reaaaaaally think about what you say here in context with the actual scripture.

It seems to me that "some" and "we" are mutually exclusive to one another in the context of the scripture itself. And for good reason.

If I recall right, God wouldn't even let Israel have horses. Or am I wrong about that? Am I wrong, Theo?

Let's review. Maybe I'm wrong.

"But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the Lord hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way" (Deut. 17:16).



So, then, it seems to me that God is saying to have faith in Him alone. I mean, sht, Theo, He specifically took their danged horses and weapons away. Right? Or naw? Did he let em have their horses and whatnot and maybe I missed that part? You just got done quoting that..."Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the Lord our God. (Ps. 20:7-8)...which actually continues...although, you stopped prior to..."They are brought down and fallen: but we are risen, and stand upright."

But God forbid the Israelites from having horses. God wanted Israel to trust in Him, not horses and chariots.

So, yeah. I think that your thought leading into the scripture that you referenced actually contradicts the scripture itself, Theo. It seems to me that if people put their faith in their chariots, then, they are effectively placing their faith in man. In man's enginuity. Not God.

“Some trust in chariots” (Ps. 20:7). Right?

Ultimately, and with all of that said, the discussion (per the topic specifically and particularly the context of your question to pcosmar about if he has a gun or not when you were making a case for moral judgment to be made by the police/government) should move in the direction of just who is the moral authority. Is it Man-over-God or God-over-Man? The way you led into that scripture that you referenced would tend to stimulate a Man-over-God scenario. God doesn't use worldly weapons. Man does. Man builds them. And man is confident in his weapons. Now, God did breath life into the horse. I'll grant you that. But God didn't saddle the feller up and hop on it with a sword and a flag or whatever. Man did that. These are specifically made mutually exclusive in the scripture you posted to support your claim.


If I'm wrong, then, please educate me. I like to learn. It's one of my favorite things to do, man. Thanks!

Where did I say that because we should have weapons and police that, therefore, we should have faith in man rather than faith in God?

Also, I hope you're not trying to argue that the Bible teaches against having armies and defense because, if you are, I would invite you to reread the books of Numbers, Deuteronomy, and Joshua (for starters) to see that God clearly commanded His people to build armies so that His purpose in giving them the "Promised Land" would be fulfilled. That was my point. God uses ordinary means to accomplish His goals in this world (in this case, the need for enforcement of law and personal protection), and that characteristic simply reflects the transcendent and imminent nature of God towards His creation.

 

[acptulsa]

But I agree that in civics, we should focus on how policing is taking place, as well as why policing is taking place.

"Government is evil," "It's controlled by Satan," blah, blah, blah, the same talking points that have been proven false over and over again, I'm not even going to have an argument about. It's not germane to the topic at hand, anyway.

Well, you two almost made it back on topic, but then you veered away again.

I asked the question I did in the thread title, because I was wondering just who it was that decided we need police to disarm us, completely fail to disarm or stop the bad guys, leave us at the mercy of the bad guys for three hours, and then come in throwing lead and killing or wounding all the innocent bystanders that the bad guy had not yet managed to get around to. And I think you both know this.

Just thought I'd clarify that.

Where did I say that because we should have weapons and police that, therefore, we should have faith in man rather than faith in God?

You said that God acts through men. Pete pointed out that the devil does, too.

If you arm a man, you are demonstrating faith in him. If you arm him and disarm yourself, you are demonstrating total faith in him. Or in God to act through him, which to a free will believer like myself, is the same thing.

The more the federal government takes our money and doles it back out to our local agencies for jumping through their hoops, the worse things get and the less our communities can do to fix their own departments.

There's nothing Godly about this federal government.

 

[pcosmar]

There's nothing Godly about this federal government.

Truth.

 

[Theocrat]

Saying My Piece So I Can Keep My Piece

Well, you two almost made it back on topic, but then you veered away again.

I asked the question I did in the thread title, because I was wondering just who it was that decided we need police to disarm us, completely fail to disarm or stop the bad guys, leave us at the mercy of the bad guys for three hours, and then come in throwing lead and killing or wounding all the innocent bystanders that the bad guy had not yet managed to get around to. And I think you both know this.

Just thought I'd clarify that.

Well, I don't agree that any law enforcement agency has the right to disarm law-abiding citizens for any reason. We have a God-given right to self-defense and security. That means that no person can take that right away when people are living righteously in society. Our dependency should be in the God Who graciously gives us our rights, not in the people who believe that our security is exclusively their responsibility.

You said that God acts through men. Pete pointed out that the devil does, too.

If you arm a man, you are demonstrating faith in him. If you arm him and disarm yourself, you are demonstrating total faith in him. Or in God to act through him, which to a free will believer like myself, is the same thing.

The more the federal government takes our money and doles it back out to our local agencies for jumping through their hoops, the worse things get and the less our communities can do to fix their own departments.

There's nothing Godly about this federal government.

Once again, I don't agree that police should be solely armed at the expense of disarming citizens. That is a recipe for tyranny. Nowhere in the Bible does God ever call for kings and civil magistrates to have possession of all weapons while their citizens have none. In fact, Jesus even allowed His disciples to carry swords in Luke 22:35-38.

We also have to be careful about arguing for normative cases from the positive cases. In other words, just because our current law enforcement has performed duties to the detriment of individuals and communities does not mean that we should never have law enforcement agencies. Such reasoning then opens the door for other proposals, as well. For instance, someone could argue that rape laws have not stopped people from raping others; therefore, we should get rid of laws against rape because they don't keep all women safe. But such reasoning really misses the point of having rape laws, in the first place.

That same reasoning applies to those wanting to eradicate all law enforcement because of the actions of law enforcement agents who have abused their authority. No, I don't think that law enforcers have the right to do whatever they want just because they wear a badge. Yes, I do believe that citizens ought to be armed just as well as our current law enforcement agencies and military. But having a police system does not cancel out having the right to protect oneself by any means necessary, nor does advocating for the existence of police mean that the person has more faith in men than in God. You all need to realize that because, quite frankly, your arguments are absurd.

 

[osan]

Can we do the sane thing yet?

Um... No.

 

[pcosmar]

I wonder how Theocrat will feel about Police when they start arresting Christians? again

 

[osan]

This guy was investigated by the FBI twice, yet still, through Wackenhut, had a license to carry. Which means even if we had full-on gun control before this happened, HE WOULD STILL HAVE BEEN ARMED!

BUT... BUT... DAMN YOU!

Gay dolphins... gay dolphins... gay... dolphins...

Gay...

Dolphins...



Gay...







Dolphins...









Gay........

 

[Theocrat]

This is How I Feel

I wonder how Theocrat will feel about Police when they start arresting Christians? again

Unlike yourself, I am able to make the distinction between an institution and those who are members of the institution. Therefore, if Christians are arrested for their beliefs, let's say, then that would be a reason to appeal to other venues (like social/mainstream media, government representatives, churches, etc.) for exposing and condemning the actions of the arresting officers, in hopes that the officers will be held accountable and the law(s) in which they are enforcing may be repealed. But it would not be a sufficient reason to call for eliminating all police.