PDA

View Full Version : The flag before the Cross/or the Cross before the flag.



Pages : [1] 2

weighed
Jul 1st 2008, 05:13 PM
Lk 9:23 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=42&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=23) And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.

I believe it is the cross, well before any flag.

The Christians responsibility is to bear the cross and not the flag.
No where in the bible are we called to carry a flag of any sort!

Gal 6:14 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=6&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=14) But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.

There are people who boast (glory) in the flag of their country, I, like Paul, would rather boast in the cross.

There are two kingdoms.You are either in one or the other.
You either carry the cross, or you don't.

Mt 23:39 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=23&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=39) For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

Many who go to war, do not go saying:"Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord. "

Perhaps this is why they donot see The Lord?

RabbiKnife
Jul 1st 2008, 05:15 PM
One can be both a good citizen and a good Christian.

Paul was both a good Roman citizen and a good Christian.

No need to make it an either/or proposition.

weighed
Jul 1st 2008, 05:25 PM
One can be both a good citizen and a good Christian.

Paul was both a good Roman citizen and a good Christian.

No need to make it an either/or proposition.

There are instances where it can be different.
When a flag offends people, maybe it should not be carried arround.An example is the old Confederate flag, for example.Is it good for one to go around, parading this old flag?

apothanein kerdos
Jul 1st 2008, 06:57 PM
More often than not, however, to be a good Christian and to be a good citizen contradict each other. Example:

An illegal immigrant comes to your house on the verge of starvation and dehydration. As a citizen you realize it might be illegal to help this immigrant. As a Christian, however, you are called to help out and feed him and give him water (whether you turn him in, however, is up to your conscience). Regardless, helping him physically might be against the law, but it is what we're called to do.

Or to the point we're going to get in this country where euthanasia and abortion will be considered mandatory (as a method of population control). A good citizen will comply while a good Christian will refuse to do these things.

In the United States - as any other country - the two (citizen and Christian) often come in conflict with each other.

Never wrap your Christianity in any flag.

downpouredlife
Jul 1st 2008, 07:20 PM
Of course it is the cross before the flag!

How can we serve our country, truly, if we are not serving God? The truest way to serve your country is to walk in his righteousness - it invites his blessing to the land!

Is it God, or my marriage first? It is God! I cannot love my husband and serve him rightly if I am not walking in God's righteousness.

RabbiKnife
Jul 1st 2008, 07:22 PM
There are instances where it can be different.
When a flag offends people, maybe it should not be carried arround.An example is the old Confederate flag, for example.Is it good for one to go around, parading this old flag?

The Conferderate State of America no longer exists.

Different question.

pinky
Jul 1st 2008, 07:40 PM
The Conferderate State of America no longer exists.

America the Free Rebublic no longer exists either......sadly.

weighed
Jul 1st 2008, 08:21 PM
The Conferderate State of America no longer exists.

Different question.

We are not only discussing countries, but flag(s), see OP.
And if you eat meat and cause your 'brother' to stumble, then don't do it.

Do we agree?

ProjectPeter
Jul 2nd 2008, 08:41 PM
So I suppose your next conclusion is because the American flag offends someone... it shouldn't be flown?

dan
Jul 2nd 2008, 09:30 PM
More often than not, however, to be a good Christian and to be a good citizen contradict each other. Example:

An illegal immigrant comes to your house on the verge of starvation and dehydration. As a citizen you realize it might be illegal to help this immigrant. As a Christian, however, you are called to help out and feed him and give him water (whether you turn him in, however, is up to your conscience). Regardless, helping him physically might be against the law, but it is what we're called to do.

Or to the point we're going to get in this country where euthanasia and abortion will be considered mandatory (as a method of population control). A good citizen will comply while a good Christian will refuse to do these things.

In the United States - as any other country - the two (citizen and Christian) often come in conflict with each other.

Never wrap your Christianity in any flag.

Nowhere does it say you cannot feed and water a person before you turn him in!:lol: God Bless America, again.

weighed
Jul 2nd 2008, 11:54 PM
Nowhere does it say you cannot feed and water a person before you turn him in!:lol: God Bless America, again.

It's up to your conscience

weighed
Jul 2nd 2008, 11:54 PM
America the Free Rebublic no longer exists either......sadly.

i wish more would see it like you.
What u say is TRUE!

theleast
Jul 3rd 2008, 12:45 PM
I would also put God before the flag. In fact I don't see where this die hard patriotism comes from.

If one is to be a Christian then you have to see the sins of a nation and how they are stumblingblocks of the masses. Abortion, pornography, the media blasting our children with images, graven images in all our churches, idol worship, and the need to make profit above all else in this country shows the love of money. And what does scripture say about the love of money?

The root of all evil, the heart of Babylon.

So now I'm supposed to go wave a flag on Independence Day and feel pride! I feel shame! This country is where the judgement will be felt the hardest. This is where the love of money motivates above the needs of the hungry, sick, and poor, and not just of this country, but over the whole world.

When I walk out my door everyday I feel perseceuted by this country. I will follow the law as Romans 13 commands, but I will NOT respect it.

And before you guys use the old "then why don't you get out" argument,
simply because the whole world will feel the judgement and there is no righteous nation. God has put me in the heart of Babylon for a purpose, and I will endure it.

ProjectPeter
Jul 3rd 2008, 01:04 PM
I bet this holiday just drives you nuts!!! :lol:

theleast
Jul 3rd 2008, 01:08 PM
I bet this holiday just drives you nuts!!! :lol:

No more than Christmas or Easter.

ProjectPeter
Jul 3rd 2008, 01:15 PM
I can only imagine. Tell me... how can you live a life of joy when so miserable?

RabbiKnife
Jul 3rd 2008, 01:16 PM
If you are "ashamed" of your country, you are more than welcome to immediately hop on the airplane, train, boat, truck, dirigible, or spaceship of your choice and establish a residence where you are not offended.

Or, you can work within the freedom that this "oppressive" country grants to you to be an agent of change instead of an agent of whine.

theleast
Jul 3rd 2008, 02:04 PM
I can only imagine. Tell me... how can you live a life of joy when so miserable?

John 16:20 (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=John+16:20&version=9) (Whole Chapter) (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=John+16&version=9)
Verily, verily, I say unto you, That ye shall weep and lament, but the world shall rejoice: and ye shall be sorrowful, but your sorrow shall be turned into joy.

Matthew 11:17 (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Matthew+11:17&version=9) (Whole Chapter) (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Matthew+11&version=9)
And saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned unto you, and ye have not lamented.



Ecclesiastes 1:18 (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Ecclesiastes+1:1 8&version=9) (Whole Chapter) (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Ecclesiastes+1&version=9)
For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

Where among these sayings do you see the Word saying I shouldn't have sorrow?

theleast
Jul 3rd 2008, 02:05 PM
If you are "ashamed" of your country, you are more than welcome to immediately hop on the airplane, train, boat, truck, dirigible, or spaceship of your choice and establish a residence where you are not offended.

Or, you can work within the freedom that this "oppressive" country grants to you to be an agent of change instead of an agent of whine.

Obviously you didn't read my whole post for at the bottom I predicted one would say this.

And my response before you even said it was, show me a righteous nation where the kings of the earth haven't fornicated with the whore.

I am in the heart of Babylon for a purpose.

weighed
Jul 3rd 2008, 06:20 PM
Obviously you didn't read my whole post for at the bottom I predicted one would say this.

And my response before you even said it was, show me a righteous nation where the kings of the earth haven't fornicated with the whore.

I am in the heart of Babylon for a purpose.

Lovely stuff!
Yes, all, and every nation has fornicated with the whore.
Not only is the U.S.A. an evil state. Every state is an evil state.

weighed
Jul 3rd 2008, 06:23 PM
Of course it is the cross before the flag!

How can we serve our country, truly, if we are not serving God? The truest way to serve your country is to walk in his righteousness - it invites his blessing to the land!

Is it God, or my marriage first? It is God! I cannot love my husband and serve him rightly if I am not walking in God's righteousness.

We are not called to serve "our" country.
We are called to serve God.
We may serve in anyway we like, but when there is a difference to what God has called us to, and what anyone else wants us to do, we REJECT such a call, and serve GOD alone!

ProjectPeter
Jul 3rd 2008, 06:24 PM
John 16:20 (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=John+16:20&version=9) (Whole Chapter) (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=John+16&version=9)
Verily, verily, I say unto you, That ye shall weep and lament, but the world shall rejoice: and ye shall be sorrowful, but your sorrow shall be turned into joy.

Matthew 11:17 (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Matthew+11:17&version=9) (Whole Chapter) (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Matthew+11&version=9)
And saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned unto you, and ye have not lamented.



Ecclesiastes 1:18 (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Ecclesiastes+1:1 8&version=9) (Whole Chapter) (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Ecclesiastes+1&version=9)
For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

Where among these sayings do you see the Word saying I shouldn't have sorrow?
You go man... sorrow away! Hey... enjoy it and all. If that is what helps you get through the nasty now and now... I'm jiggy with it.

ProjectPeter
Jul 3rd 2008, 06:25 PM
We are not called to serve "our" country.
We are called to serve God.
We may serve in anyway we like, but when there is a difference to what God has called us to, and what anyone else wants us to do, we REJECT such a call, and serve GOD alone!
Shoot... were I you guys... I'd go to Walmart and buy all the US flags they had and just burn the things. Who needs fireworks when on the 4th you can have a good old flag burning!!! Get a stick and stir up the fire... better than sparklers! :lol:

Slug1
Jul 3rd 2008, 06:27 PM
We are not called to serve "our" country.
We are called to serve God.
We may serve in anyway we like, but when there is a difference to what God has called us to, and what anyone else wants us to do, we REJECT such a call, and serve GOD alone!I was called by God to serve in the US Army.

He blessed my career and used it to equip me for the ministry He entrusted me with. I didn't learn this till after I retired and was ready for it.

How does that fit into your opinion? Just asking out of interest, not to debate anything.

fewarechosen
Jul 3rd 2008, 06:43 PM
Shoot... were I you guys... I'd go to Walmart and buy all the US flags they had and just burn the things. Who needs fireworks when on the 4th you can have a good old flag burning!!! Get a stick and stir up the fire... better than sparklers! :lol:

that makes no sense you imply things that arent there. you seem to impy that "we" have some sort of ill wish for the people in the country and that is far from true. burning a flag is the same as honoring a flag, pointless.

now i dont judge a persons ability to see evil in their own country, some cant see it at all.

some will see a nation that allows the worship of false gods in it - god does not look favorably upon that - you may feel he does

somehow many feel it is wrong for someone to say hey watch out destruction is coming our way. we may wish to warn our brothers.

while others want to say hey dont worry we are a good nation.

3For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.

so sorry if some of us say all nations have drunk of her fornication - its only scripture

weighed
Jul 3rd 2008, 07:14 PM
i Was Called By God To Serve In The Us Army.

He Blessed My Career And Used It To Equip Me For The Ministry He Entrusted Me With. I Didn't Learn This Till After I Retired And Was Ready For It.

How Does That Fit Into Your Opinion? Just Asking Out Of Interest, Not To Debate Anything.

May I Just Love You For Who You Are.may We All Seek Him And Grow Day By Day.he Loves Us All So Much!
In Another Mood, I May Be A Liitle Bit Other, But Today,
Let s Rejoice

ProjectPeter
Jul 3rd 2008, 07:26 PM
Simple fact. This nation has tons to be sorry for. Tons to be ashamed of. Tons that need much prayer for BUT THAT is what we are supposed to do. PRAY for our leaders that we may live in peace, a godly people. Hard to pray for them and hate them at the same time... and oh yeah... hate is often what I hear. ;)

theleast
Jul 3rd 2008, 08:32 PM
I was called by God to serve in the US Army.

He blessed my career and used it to equip me for the ministry He entrusted me with. I didn't learn this till after I retired and was ready for it.

How does that fit into your opinion? Just asking out of interest, not to debate anything.

Anything that happened in the past that brought you to God and to be where you are today, happened for that reason.

Don't think that I am insulting you or anybody who serves their country.

I'm just saying I serve God and that is the most important Kingdom to serve.

theleast
Jul 3rd 2008, 08:33 PM
Simple fact. This nation has tons to be sorry for. Tons to be ashamed of. Tons that need much prayer for BUT THAT is what we are supposed to do. PRAY for our leaders that we may live in peace, a godly people. Hard to pray for them and hate them at the same time... and oh yeah... hate is often what I hear. ;)

I don't hate anybody. But I hate the sins that are destroying this nation and hastening the judgement that will befall it.

Slug1
Jul 3rd 2008, 09:13 PM
May I Just Love You For Who You Are.may We All Seek Him And Grow Day By Day.he Loves Us All So Much!
In Another Mood, I May Be A Liitle Bit Other, But Today,
Let s RejoiceOK..... I think.

Did you just beat around the bush :P

Slug1
Jul 3rd 2008, 09:15 PM
I'm just saying I serve God and that is the most important Kingdom to serve.Just as I served Him also... as a soldier.

theleast
Jul 3rd 2008, 09:50 PM
Just as I served Him also... as a soldier.

From what I understand this has been a sore subject, and I don't think I want to get lured into that ugly debate which has arleady been had.

This thread is about putting country before God according to the OP yes?

I would say that God comes before country, and one cannot serve both God and mammon.

That is my stance on this issue.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 3rd 2008, 10:04 PM
For those that are in the military or have been in the military, it can be quite tricky.

Thankfully - for the most part - the United States has had an ethical military. Though there have been black sheep here and there, Christians have been able to faithfully serve in the military (that is, of course, if you believe a Christian is permitted to kill for his country).

At the same time, and I know all former and current military personnel will agree with me, if given orders that explicitly go against God's Word, Christians should adhere to God's Word over military orders.

pinky
Jul 3rd 2008, 10:14 PM
Simple fact. This nation has tons to be sorry for. Tons to be ashamed of. Tons that need much prayer for BUT THAT is what we are supposed to do. PRAY for our leaders that we may live in peace, a godly people. Hard to pray for them and hate them at the same time... and oh yeah... hate is often what I hear. ;)


Criticism=hate?

Please see scripture for many examples of justified criticism of evil leaders and grieving for the sins of your nation.


:hmm:

theleast
Jul 3rd 2008, 10:25 PM
For those that are in the military or have been in the military, it can be quite tricky.

Thankfully - for the most part - the United States has had an ethical military. Though there have been black sheep here and there, Christians have been able to faithfully serve in the military (that is, of course, if you believe a Christian is permitted to kill for his country).

At the same time, and I know all former and current military personnel will agree with me, if given orders that explicitly go against God's Word, Christians should adhere to God's Word over military orders.

So was the genocide of the Native American ethical? As a whole? Or did just a few black sheep commit that atrocity?

IamBill
Jul 3rd 2008, 11:10 PM
Lk 9:23 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=42&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=23) And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.

I believe it is the cross, well before any flag.

The Christians responsibility is to bear the cross and not the flag.
No where in the bible are we called to carry a flag of any sort!

Gal 6:14 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=6&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=14) But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.

There are people who boast (glory) in the flag of their country, I, like Paul, would rather boast in the cross.

There are two kingdoms.You are either in one or the other.
You either carry the cross, or you don't.

Mt 23:39 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=23&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=39) For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

Many who go to war, do not go saying:"Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord. "

Perhaps this is why they donot see The Lord?

so instead of the obvious 'no brainier' question in the title. this is another anti-soldier thread ?

theleast
Jul 3rd 2008, 11:15 PM
so instead of the obvious 'no brainier' question in the title. this is another anti-soldier thread ?

I don't think it is an anti-soldier thread, so much as it is a duty of a Christian thread.

Slug1
Jul 4th 2008, 12:16 AM
So was the genocide of the Native American ethical? As a whole? Or did just a few black sheep commit that atrocity?Ummmm, wasn't todays military.

theleast
Jul 4th 2008, 12:36 AM
Ummmm, wasn't todays military.

That was America's military was it not?

What is happening today doesn't change the past.

This country was built on stolen land by slaves.

That cannot be forgotten.

Slug1
Jul 4th 2008, 12:45 AM
That was America's military was it not?

What is happening today doesn't change the past.

This country was built on stolen land by slaves.

That cannot be forgotten.Maybe not forgotten but to associate today's military with yesterday's military.... wayyyyyyyyyyyy yesterday's... is that like saying for example a great grandfather in your families bloodline killed a neighbor of his and today about 100 years later you and your present family still are blamed for the murder 100 years ago?

theleast
Jul 4th 2008, 01:17 AM
So then in the civil war if God was on the side of America, who's side was he on in that conflict?

theleast
Jul 4th 2008, 01:22 AM
Maybe not forgotten but to associate today's military with yesterday's military.... wayyyyyyyyyyyy yesterday's... is that like saying for example a great grandfather in your families bloodline killed a neighbor of his and today about 100 years later you and your present family still are blamed for the murder 100 years ago?

29Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,

30And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
31Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. 32Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.

Here Christ shows what God thinks of the sons whose fathers killed the prophets.

Is this any different?

ProjectPeter
Jul 4th 2008, 01:25 AM
I don't hate anybody. But I hate the sins that are destroying this nation and hastening the judgement that will befall it.I see. So those that might fly a flag tomorrow are putting country before God? Alrighty then... weird sure enough but hey... someone has to believe something I suppose.

Slug1
Jul 4th 2008, 01:25 AM
So then in the civil war if God was on the side of America, who's side was he on in that conflict?Both, but the purpose to end slavery was the result. The death toll to Americans was what we reaped for giving into the twisted use of human as slaves. Biblical slavery wasn't oppressive when done the way God intended.

Will you still be blamed for a murder that a family member committed 100 years ago? This neighbor wasn't a prophet... is this example I used difficult?

theleast
Jul 4th 2008, 01:27 AM
I see. So those that might fly a flag tomorrow are putting country before God? Alrighty then... weird sure enough but hey... someone has to believe something I suppose.

ProjectPeter, I have seen your posts and you are smart enough to not have to put words in somebodies mouth to build up a strawman to tear it down.

Let's show each other more courtesy than that. :D

theleast
Jul 4th 2008, 01:28 AM
Both, but the purpose to end slavery was the result. The death toll to Americans was what we reaped for giving into the twisted use of human as slaves. Biblical slavery wasn't oppressive when done the way God intended.

Will you still be blamed for a murder that a family member committed 100 years ago? This neighbor wasn't a prophet... is this example I used difficult?

Read the scripture I posted for therein lies the answer.

Slug1
Jul 4th 2008, 01:28 AM
No it doesn't :lol:

ProjectPeter
Jul 4th 2008, 01:29 AM
Criticism=hate?

Please see scripture for many examples of justified criticism of evil leaders and grieving for the sins of your nation.


:hmm:Um... criticize away. That's an easy thing to do! World is full of critics!

But in keeping with the OP... it is made out as if it is a sin to fly a flag because in some freaky way that means you are part of this kingdom and not God's kingdom. The flag... has nothing to do with that and it is skewed logic. The sins of this nation are what they are just as are the sins of all nations. Flying that flag... doesn't mean one is pro sins of the nation no more than owning a Ford means I am for the sins of the nation. :rolleyes:

ProjectPeter
Jul 4th 2008, 01:33 AM
Well... as I read on I see that this is just turning into another anti-war, anti-military thread. As I stated... ain't happening.

ProjectPeter
Jul 4th 2008, 01:37 AM
Let me have everyone's undivided attention. If you don't like the American government then fine. If you don't like the military then fine. If you think all soldiers are hell bound murdering heathens then fine. That's up to you and your own little self. Just keep that to your self. This is Bible chat. It ain't contro. I am moving the thread now and if this becomes anti-military then I will close it. That isn't productive.

ProjectPeter
Jul 4th 2008, 01:40 AM
ProjectPeter, I have seen your posts and you are smart enough to not have to put words in somebodies mouth to build up a strawman to tear it down.

Let's show each other more courtesy than that. :DDid you read the OP? IT was his strawman... it needed tore down.

theleast
Jul 4th 2008, 02:04 AM
Did you read the OP? IT was his strawman... it needed tore down.

And yet it hasn't been torn down.

1And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was lightened with his glory.

2And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.
3For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies. 4And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

But the holy scriptures reveal unto us the truth. See the portion in red.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 4th 2008, 03:30 AM
So was the genocide of the Native American ethical? As a whole? Or did just a few black sheep commit that atrocity?

The entire military wasn't involved. Likewise, even some of the soldiers involved chose not to partake.

With that said, I would argue this is one of the very few cases where the US military, en masse (since the orders came from the Commander in Chief) was wrong and committing atrocities.

In all fairness, however, the Indian attacks on civilians were equally atrocious - we need to be fair minded in our history. :)

I think people who choose to ignore the genocide and atrocities that America and individual Americans have committed are blindly patriotic and have put the Red, White, and Blue in front of the Cross.

At the same time, I think people who are dogmatically anti-American and refuse to look at the good things we have done, especially our military men and women, are ignoring the Biblical commands to submit to our government and, on a broader spectrum, forgoing being grateful. This is just as bad as being blindly patriotic.

I try to be balanced in my view of history and current events. I am very much against the Iraq War, but I will never speak ill-will toward out soldiers fighting there (and who have fought there) because it's not their fault that the Bush administration made a mistake (side note: please, no one start a debate on the Iraq War because i will not participate in it - mainly because there is no resolve and because that is not what this topic is about).

theleast
Jul 4th 2008, 03:44 AM
The entire military wasn't involved. Likewise, even some of the soldiers involved chose not to partake.

With that said, I would argue this is one of the very few cases where the US military, en masse (since the orders came from the Commander in Chief) was wrong and committing atrocities.

In all fairness, however, the Indian attacks on civilians were equally atrocious - we need to be fair minded in our history. :)

I think people who choose to ignore the genocide and atrocities that America and individual Americans have committed are blindly patriotic and have put the Red, White, and Blue in front of the Cross.

At the same time, I think people who are dogmatically anti-American and refuse to look at the good things we have done, especially our military men and women, are ignoring the Biblical commands to submit to our government and, on a broader spectrum, forgoing being grateful. This is just as bad as being blindly patriotic.

I try to be balanced in my view of history and current events. I am very much against the Iraq War, but I will never speak ill-will toward out soldiers fighting there (and who have fought there) because it's not their fault that the Bush administration made a mistake (side note: please, no one start a debate on the Iraq War because i will not participate in it - mainly because there is no resolve and because that is not what this topic is about).

Good points.

I wonder though...those soldiers involved who choose not to partake...what is their responsibility then under Romans 13? If they followed direct orders to commit genocide were they following the will of God or denying it? Or were they denying God's will by not following Romans 13?

Which soldiers were better patriots, those who followed orders, or those who denied them?

The beauty of the gospel is that there is no disputing the will of God in the Word. Carnal affairs however are forever up to debate.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 4th 2008, 04:12 AM
Good points.

I wonder though...those soldiers involved who choose not to partake...what is their responsibility then under Romans 13? If they followed direct orders to commit genocide were they following the will of God or denying it? Or were they denying God's will by not following Romans 13?

Which soldiers were better patriots, those who followed orders, or those who denied them?

The beauty of the gospel is that there is no disputing the will of God in the Word. Carnal affairs however are forever up to debate.

I'd argue they're a bad Christian...but I don't know about being a good or bad patriot. Bad patriot in following orders, but a good Patriot in upholding the ideal of the Constitution.

Alaska
Jul 4th 2008, 04:43 AM
The beauty of the gospel is that there is no disputing the will of God in the Word. Carnal affairs however are forever up to debate.

The above statement is a bit contradictory.
True, the will of God concerning a particular point under discussion, as revealed by the word, cannot be disputed IF the scriptures used from the word pertaining to that point are being rightly divided.

Nowadays, hardly anything can be said from the word without it being disputed by someone who is using scriptures to do the disputing! We are living in the time of the falling away that Paul referred to. It is shocking to see, for example, how many believers in Jesus believe that polygamy is OK because what they find in the OT. They are not rightly dividing the word. If Satan can't get a believer to fall away, by, lets say, going headlong into blatant sinful living, he can get that believer to fall from grace by bringing him into bondage to the law; going back to things that the NT has changed or made obsolete. For example, no longer can the verse be used from the OT that has instruction for the man with 2 wives. That is because in the NT polygamy is not permitted. That verse is irrellevant to us in the NT. [Someone reading this is going to disagree using OT scriptures to do so.]

What I saw in the other thread that was closed, as this one will most likely also be closed, was a determination to use OT verses to justify what the NT plainly says is not allowed. There is a falling from grace when the NT better and greater covenant, as Paul said, is overridden by the lesser covenant, which the NT came to replace. The OT law was supposed to be crucified with Christ, yet there are so many out there digging it up because in it can be found ways of justifying things that the NT does not allow.
"No man is justified by the law".
"The law came by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ."

America, and hence it's flag, is associated with it's actions. Some foreigners who visit here during the 4th, and see all the flag waving, are going to wonder why Americans are glorying in their shame: Gay "marriages" in CA and hence the fires, the abortion genocide, which God hates, etc.
And many of the patriotic ones, waving the flags, are also unashamedly saying they are Christians!!

Righteousness exalteth a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people.
Prov. 14:34

Her sins have reached up to heaven and God has remembered her iniquities

Slug1
Jul 4th 2008, 11:17 AM
Good points.

I wonder though...those soldiers involved who choose not to partake...what is their responsibility then under Romans 13? If they followed direct orders to commit genocide were they following the will of God or denying it? Or were they denying God's will by not following Romans 13?

Which soldiers were better patriots, those who followed orders, or those who denied them?

The beauty of the gospel is that there is no disputing the will of God in the Word. Carnal affairs however are forever up to debate.In today's militay any soldier can refuse any unlawful order that they receive. If ordered to just go out and kill all civilians then this would be an unlawful order and there is not a court in this nation that would hold that decision of refusal against a soldier. I'm sure you watch the news and hear about all the soldiers held on murder charges when they kill civilians until proven innocent of a warcrime? Unfortunately, when found innocent that's not news worthy so you really never hear about that much on the news.

But the fact remains, it's a new day, new military, let's treat the military like we woke up to this new day as well and learn from the past, not hold it against them.

ProjectPeter
Jul 4th 2008, 01:10 PM
And yet it hasn't been torn down.

1And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was lightened with his glory.

2And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.
3For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies. 4And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

But the holy scriptures reveal unto us the truth. See the portion in red.If you think that the US and it says come out of her... then I would suspect you ought be packing and moving.... right?

theleast
Jul 4th 2008, 01:16 PM
I'd argue they're a bad Christian...but I don't know about being a good or bad patriot. Bad patriot in following orders, but a good Patriot in upholding the ideal of the Constitution.

Arguing that they are a bad Christian for not following order? or for following them?

theleast
Jul 4th 2008, 01:18 PM
The above statement is a bit contradictory.
True, the will of God concerning a particular point under discussion, as revealed by the word, cannot be disputed IF the scriptures used from the word pertaining to that point are being rightly divided.

Nowadays, hardly anything can be said from the word without it being disputed by someone who is using scriptures to do the disputing! We are living in the time of the falling away that Paul referred to. It is shocking to see, for example, how many believers in Jesus believe that polygamy is OK because what they find in the OT. They are not rightly dividing the word. If Satan can't get a believer to fall away, by, lets say, going headlong into blatant sinful living, he can get that believer to fall from grace by bringing him into bondage to the law; going back to things that the NT has changed or made obsolete. For example, no longer can the verse be used from the OT that has instruction for the man with 2 wives. That is because in the NT polygamy is not permitted. That verse is irrellevant to us in the NT. [Someone reading this is going to disagree using OT scriptures to do so.]

What I saw in the other thread that was closed, as this one will most likely also be closed, was a determination to use OT verses to justify what the NT plainly says is not allowed. There is a falling from grace when the NT better and greater covenant, as Paul said, is overridden by the lesser covenant, which the NT came to replace. The OT law was supposed to be crucified with Christ, yet there are so many out there digging it up because in it can be found ways of justifying things that the NT does not allow.
"No man is justified by the law".
"The law came by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ."

America, and hence it's flag, is associated with it's actions. Some foreigners who visit here during the 4th, and see all the flag waving, are going to wonder why Americans are glorying in their shame: Gay "marriages" in CA and hence the fires, the abortion genocide, which God hates, etc.
And many of the patriotic ones, waving the flags, are also unashamedly saying they are Christians!!

Righteousness exalteth a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people.
Prov. 14:34

Her sins have reached up to heaven and God has remembered her iniquities

Good post. However I think you are misinterpreting the gospel I'm referring to.

I was talking about the gospel of the truth that is written in the hearts and minds of the chosen by God.

Not the gospel man tosses around as being truth, but is corrupted by their own interpretations for, what else, not having FAITH that the Spirit will interpret for them.

theleast
Jul 4th 2008, 01:33 PM
In today's militay any soldier can refuse any unlawful order that they receive. If ordered to just go out and kill all civilians then this would be an unlawful order and there is not a court in this nation that would hold that decision of refusal against a soldier. I'm sure you watch the news and hear about all the soldiers held on murder charges when they kill civilians until proven innocent of a warcrime? Unfortunately, when found innocent that's not news worthy so you really never hear about that much on the news.

But the fact remains, it's a new day, new military, let's treat the military like we woke up to this new day as well and learn from the past, not hold it against them.

O.K. fair enough.

Despite what is being put into my mouth by some, I am not a hater of the solider.

I however find the actions of the government today to be shamefull. If this nation was a righteous nation, it would be putting it's resources to use feeding the hungry and helping the poor. Instead it is using it's resources to fuel a war that it is destined to lose.

In the end it all comes back to faith in God. If this country was righteous instead of evil and wicked, God would protect this country from our enemies. Just as he did for Israel. But when Israel failed in righteousness what happened? God let their enemies overcome them.

America is NOT a righteous nation today. God is slow to anger, but he's just about had his fill our countries greed, power hungry, corrupted, perverted, immoral, war mongering, adulterous, hatred, and of a peoples whose love is waxing cold. And unfortunatly for the soldiers which I do care about, that doesn't bode well for them in the field.

And while the place for the soldier and police officer is to serve and protect, the duty of a called and chosen servent of God lies down a different path. My duty and calling is to have faith in God that he will protect me and feed me, he will deliver me from my enemies because he will not let a simple thing like a bullet get in the way of my duties and responsibilities to him. He would do the same for this nation if this nation had faith. But America instead chooses to kill faith, because she loves her physical belongings more than God.

theleast
Jul 4th 2008, 01:34 PM
If you think that the US and it says come out of her... then I would suspect you ought be packing and moving.... right?

I will give you the same answer in this thread as I gave in the other.

Show me a righteous nation on the Earth today, and I will move there.

Vhayes
Jul 4th 2008, 01:55 PM
Phaeton, I'm going to state an observation here that may offend you. If it does, I ask that you forgive me because that is NOT my intent. I want to give you something to think about.

No matter where we live, there will be things that are wrong. Our main focus should always be to preach the Good News that is Jesus Christ and Him crucified and resurrected.

Our job, as Christians, isn't to make this a better world, it's to CHANGE the world, one lost soul at a time. Our job isn't to judge others and set ourselves up as "better" or "more spiritual" than others, our job as Christians is to cultivate our own relationship with the Lord and to allow the indwelling Holy Spirit to change our lives as He leads us.

We are all individuals with our own unique vanities and faults. God deals with us One on one - just like a good earthly father does.

Jesus ate with the sinners - do you feel He "came out from her" while eating with them? I don't. I think He had such love for people He met them exactly where they were.

Thanks for taking time to read -
V

Slug1
Jul 4th 2008, 01:57 PM
O.K. fair enough.

Despite what is being put into my mouth by some, I am not a hater of the solider.

I however find the actions of the government today to be shamefull. If this nation was a righteous nation, it would be putting it's resources to use feeding the hungry and helping the poor. Instead it is using it's resources to fuel a war that it is destined to lose.

In the end it all comes back to faith in God. If this country was righteous instead of evil and wicked, God would protect this country from our enemies. Just as he did for Israel. But when Israel failed in righteousness what happened? God let their enemies overcome them.

America is NOT a righteous nation today. God is slow to anger, but he's just about had his fill our countries greed, power hungry, corrupted, perverted, immoral, war mongering, adulterous, hatred, and of a peoples whose love is waxing cold. And unfortunatly for the soldiers which I do care about, that doesn't bode well for them in the field.

And while the place for the soldier and police officer is to serve and protect, the duty of a called and chosen servent of God lies down a different path. My duty and calling is to have faith in God that he will protect me and feed me, he will deliver me from my enemies because he will not let a simple thing like a bullet get in the way of my duties and responsibilities to him. He would do the same for this nation if this nation had faith. But America instead chooses to kill faith, because she loves her physical belongings more than God.instead of speaking out against the US, pray for the US instead.

God delivers you from your enemies by using police and soldiers. If it's a spiritual attack I understand that only God will be your Sword, but when the attack comes from this earth God has placed a Minister of God between you and the attack.

I also understand that God can and will protect you from attacks of this world. As I stated before, I have been protected by God in all my combat and I relayed a story in one of these threads we're in :D. But, that does not mean He will also never use a Minister of God to save you.

Brother Mark
Jul 4th 2008, 01:58 PM
O.K. fair enough.

Despite what is being put into my mouth by some, I am not a hater of the solider.

I however find the actions of the government today to be shamefull. If this nation was a righteous nation, it would be putting it's resources to use feeding the hungry and helping the poor. Instead it is using it's resources to fuel a war that it is destined to lose.

While I wouldn't call the US righteous or unrighteous, I will point out that she helps the poor and hungry not just at home, but abroad.


In the end it all comes back to faith in God. If this country was righteous instead of evil and wicked, God would protect this country from our enemies. Just as he did for Israel. But when Israel failed in righteousness what happened? God let their enemies overcome them.

You mean God will raise up and army like he did with David and his mighty men to protect Israel? Or that God will raise up a Samson? Or a Debra to fight a war? I agree. He does that kind of thing.

theleast
Jul 4th 2008, 02:10 PM
While I wouldn't call the US righteous or unrighteous, I will point out that she helps the poor and hungry not just at home, but abroad.



You mean God will raise up and army like he did with David and his mighty men to protect Israel? Or that God will raise up a Samson? Or a Debra to fight a war? I agree. He does that kind of thing.

He could raise up any kind of a king that he desired. If this nation was righteous I would expect a David. If not then I suppose we could expect much worse.

However sadly I think the part that everybody is missing is that we are past the OT kings. There is a King who is coming who is King of Kings and Lord of Lords, and his dominion will encompass all. There is a great judgement that he brings to the world and sadly if you search the scripture with prayer you will find that this country that everybody has such ardent patriotism for, and are willing to die defending, will be where the judgement falls the hardest.

This is the richest country ever upon the face of the Earth. Yes even richer than Rome or Babylon. This is where the love of money waxes strong and love alone just waxes cold.

In the day of judgement how can this country stand?

Brother Mark
Jul 4th 2008, 02:14 PM
He could raise up any kind of a king that he desired. If this nation was righteous I would expect a David. If not then I suppose we could expect much worse.

However sadly I think the part that everybody is missing is that we are past the OT kings. There is a King who is coming who is King of Kings and Lord of Lords, and his dominion will encompass all. There is a great judgement that he brings to the world and sadly if you search the scripture with prayer you will find that this country that everybody has such ardent patriotism for, and are willing to die defending, will be where the judgement falls the hardest.

Since we know God doesn't change and that he has ordered war in the past, he will do so again in the future. Jesus told many saints in the OT to kill during times of war and led Joshua himself in war. So while OT kings may no longer rule, the God that ruled them does! And he hasn't changed.

Seeker of truth
Jul 4th 2008, 02:29 PM
Lk 9:23 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=42&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=23) And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.

I believe it is the cross, well before any flag.

The Christians responsibility is to bear the cross and not the flag.
No where in the bible are we called to carry a flag of any sort!

Gal 6:14 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=6&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=14) But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.

There are people who boast (glory) in the flag of their country, I, like Paul, would rather boast in the cross.

There are two kingdoms.You are either in one or the other.
You either carry the cross, or you don't.

Mt 23:39 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=23&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=39) For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

Many who go to war, do not go saying:"Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord. "

Perhaps this is why they donot see The Lord?

First the Lord, then my country. Though I love both, I love the Lord more.

theleast
Jul 4th 2008, 02:45 PM
Phaeton, I'm going to state an observation here that may offend you. If it does, I ask that you forgive me because that is NOT my intent. I want to give you something to think about.

No matter where we live, there will be things that are wrong. Our main focus should always be to preach the Good News that is Jesus Christ and Him crucified and resurrected.

Our job, as Christians, isn't to make this a better world, it's to CHANGE the world, one lost soul at a time. Our job isn't to judge others and set ourselves up as "better" or "more spiritual" than others, our job as Christians is to cultivate our own relationship with the Lord and to allow the indwelling Holy Spirit to change our lives as He leads us.

We are all individuals with our own unique vanities and faults. God deals with us One on one - just like a good earthly father does.

Jesus ate with the sinners - do you feel He "came out from her" while eating with them? I don't. I think He had such love for people He met them exactly where they were.

Thanks for taking time to read -
V

No offense dear brother!

When I say come out of her, or out of the world I think were my exact words, I am not saying seperate yourself from all humanity. I am saying seperate yourself from your OWN flesh. Take the mote out of your OWN eye, that way you can then see clearly to take the speck out of your brothers.

Seperating oneself from the flesh is in all reality death. It is not an easy thing to do. But necessary if you are to move from called to chosen.

In this sense you come out from the world, and from Babylon and the whore.

Peace

theleast
Jul 4th 2008, 02:46 PM
Since we know God doesn't change and that he has ordered war in the past, he will do so again in the future. Jesus told many saints in the OT to kill during times of war and led Joshua himself in war. So while OT kings may no longer rule, the God that ruled them does! And he hasn't changed.

Israel also had the ark of the covenent.

Where is America's ark?

If God does not change, and he went before them into war with the ark....where is America's ark?

Brother Mark
Jul 4th 2008, 02:50 PM
Israel also had the ark of the covenent.

Where is America's ark?

If God does not change, and he went before them into war with the ark....where is America's ark?

He didn't send the ark of the covenant out in front of Samson.

Eaglenester
Jul 4th 2008, 03:15 PM
If America was formed by Yahweh as a "christian" nation

They why was The Declaration of Independence written by a mason instead of a christian :confused.

Why wasn't Scripture quoted or even mentioned in The Declaration of Independence or The Constitution :confused

Why wasn't The LORD or Jesus or Christ even named in The Declaration of Independence or The Constitution :confused

Why was the free practice of religion not mentioned in The Declaration of Independence or The Constitution, but had to be added as an amendment later as a means to get The Constitution ratified? :confused

Why was the 1st President a mason instead of a believer :confused

Why did it take almost 200 years for blacks to be legally recognized as equally human :confused

Slug1
Jul 4th 2008, 03:42 PM
If America was formed by Yahweh as a "christian" nation

They why was The Declaration of Independence written by a mason instead of a christian :confused.

Why wasn't Scripture quoted or even mentioned in The Declaration of Independence or The Constitution :confused

Why wasn't The LORD or Jesus or Christ even named in The Declaration of Independence or The Constitution :confused

Why was the free practice of religion not mentioned in The Declaration of Independence or The Constitution, but had to be added as an amendment later as a means to get The Constitution ratified? :confused

Why was the 1st President a mason instead of a believer :confused

Why did it take almost 200 years for blacks to be legally recognized as equally human :confusedCause we aren't perfect and now try to fix the imperfect ;)

Eaglenester
Jul 4th 2008, 03:57 PM
Cause we aren't perfect and now try to fix the imperfect ;)

I don't see exampled where we are to fix governments - but make disciples.

Paul, Peter or the other Apostles didn't try to fix Rome or the other countries the Gospel was spread to - they focused on proclaiming the Gospel and changing hearts towards Messiah.

When Peter wrote for us to obey the governmental leaders - believers in Messiah were being persecuted and brutally tortured and killed by the Roman government.
He didn't advocate, or practice trying to have it stopped - but to count it all joy, to stay focused on Yahshua.

When Paul was on his anti-Messiah quest (sanctioned by the Jewish religious leaders) - we don't see the believers trying to get the Roman authorities to stop it.

theleast
Jul 4th 2008, 04:06 PM
He didn't send the ark of the covenant out in front of Samson.

And what was the end of Samson????

Was Israel delivered from the Phillistines in this reign?

Only at the very end without an army did he do this, and at the cost of his own life.

And yet you cleverly dodge the question yet again.

Where is America's ark of the covenent?

Brother Mark
Jul 4th 2008, 04:09 PM
And what was the end of Samson????

Was Israel delivered from the Phillistines in this reign?

Only at the very end without an army did he do this, and at the cost of his own life.

And yet you cleverly dodge the question yet again.

Where is America's ark of the covenent?

I can't find one place where Samson went to war and the ark was in front of him. That was part of the answer!

The ark of the covenant has been replaced with the indwelling presence of God. But the point remains, the ark never led Samson into battle and he was full of the Holy Spirit and enabled to fight and even listed in the Hebrews 11 as a man of great faith!

Slug1
Jul 4th 2008, 04:20 PM
I don't see exampled where we are to fix governments - but make disciples.

Paul, Peter or the other Apostles didn't try to fix Rome or the other countries the Gospel was spread to - they focused on proclaiming the Gospel and changing hearts towards Messiah.

When Peter wrote for us to obey the governmental leaders - believers in Messiah were being persecuted and brutally tortured and killed by the Roman government.
He didn't advocate, or practice trying to have it stopped - but to count it all joy, to stay focused on Yahshua.

When Paul was on his anti-Messiah quest (sanctioned by the Jewish religious leaders) - we don't see the believers trying to get the Roman authorities to stop it.That's cause the rulers back then weren't believers... a vast majority weren't I feel. It's not that we, as Christian's fix government... however "IF" (and I hate to what-if, as we all know ;)) more Christian's were to be in government, one's devoted to Christ and made decisions based on a Biblical standpoint then government would turn around.

Brother Mark
Jul 4th 2008, 04:21 PM
That's cause the rulers back then weren't believers... a vast majority weren't I feel. It's not that we, as Christian's fix government... however "IF" (and I hate to what-if, as we all know ;)) more Christian's were to be in government, one's devoted to Christ and made decisions based on a Biblical standpoint then government would turn around.

Also, as a republic/democratic form of government, that means we are part of the government.

theleast
Jul 4th 2008, 04:39 PM
I can't find one place where Samson went to war and the ark was in front of him. That was part of the answer!

The ark of the covenant has been replaced with the indwelling presence of God. But the point remains, the ark never led Samson into battle and he was full of the Holy Spirit and enabled to fight and even listed in the Hebrews 11 as a man of great faith!

Funny you say that the scriptures don't say the ark went before him, and you carefully point that out.

Yet you don't mind adding to the scripture that he was filled with the Holy Spirit, yet that doesn't appear in scripture either.

Perhaps we should be more consistent?

And if the ark has been replaced with the indwelling presence of God as you presume, then doesn't that put us under the new covenent and not the old?

For the scripture says...

7For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

8For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
9Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
10For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
11And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
12For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. 13In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

And as it vanishes away we are bound by the new commandments of which we have only two...

37Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38This is the first and great commandment.

39And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

And what is the entire basis of these two commandments?

Love...not war, vengence, violence, or hatred.

Just love.

theleast
Jul 4th 2008, 04:44 PM
That's cause the rulers back then weren't believers... a vast majority weren't I feel. It's not that we, as Christian's fix government... however "IF" (and I hate to what-if, as we all know ;)) more Christian's were to be in government, one's devoted to Christ and made decisions based on a Biblical standpoint then government would turn around.

And yet it doesn't.

Slug1
Jul 4th 2008, 04:44 PM
Funny you say that the scriptures don't say the ark went before him, and you carefully point that out.

Yet you don't mind adding to the scripture that he was filled with the Holy Spirit, yet that doesn't appear in scripture either.

Perhaps we should be more consistent?
Judges 13

24 The woman gave birth to a boy and named him Samson. He grew and the LORD blessed him, 25 and the Spirit of the LORD began to stir him while he was in Mahaneh Dan, between Zorah and Eshtaol.

Judges 14

6 The Spirit of the LORD came upon him in power so that he tore the lion apart with his bare hands as he might have torn a young goat. But he told neither his father nor his mother what he had done.

19 Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon him in power. He went down to Ashkelon, struck down thirty of their men, stripped them of their belongings and gave their clothes to those who had explained the riddle. Burning with anger, he went up to his father's house.

Judges 15:

4 As he approached Lehi, the Philistines came toward him shouting. The Spirit of the LORD came upon him in power. The ropes on his arms became like charred flax, and the bindings dropped from his hands.

God is the same then, now, and forever more. So even though it doesn't "say" in scripture that the Spirit of the Lord came upon him when he prayed for vengeance against the Philistines we can see the result of the prayer and God answered him and filled him with the supernatural strength needed to slay his enemy?

theleast
Jul 4th 2008, 04:46 PM
Also, as a republic/democratic form of government, that means we are part of the government.

But not just we, but also all of those who are self interested, (lobbies), who care only for their own concerns and not the concerns of others.

And the leaders in this flawed system are allowed to take bribes to sway their votes and in so doing, also do not look after the interests of the people but instead their own....brilliant.

And that my friends is why democracy and republics fail....corruption.

theleast
Jul 4th 2008, 04:48 PM
Judges 13

24 The woman gave birth to a boy and named him Samson. He grew and the LORD blessed him, 25 and the Spirit of the LORD began to stir him while he was in Mahaneh Dan, between Zorah and Eshtaol.

Judges 14

6 The Spirit of the LORD came upon him in power so that he tore the lion apart with his bare hands as he might have torn a young goat. But he told neither his father nor his mother what he had done.

19 Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon him in power. He went down to Ashkelon, struck down thirty of their men, stripped them of their belongings and gave their clothes to those who had explained the riddle. Burning with anger, he went up to his father's house.

Judges 15:

4 As he approached Lehi, the Philistines came toward him shouting. The Spirit of the LORD came upon him in power. The ropes on his arms became like charred flax, and the bindings dropped from his hands.

God is the same then, now, and forever more.


Came upon or rested upon or stirred him, is not the same as IN him.

If I get on a plane I'm in trouble when it takes off....but if I get in the plane I'm all good.

Funny analogy but you get the point that on an in are two different things.

Slug1
Jul 4th 2008, 04:51 PM
Came upon or rested upon or stirred him, is not the same as IN him.

If I get on a plane I'm in trouble when it takes off....but if I get in the plane I'm all good.

Funny analogy but you get the point that on an in are two different things.That's cause he was of the OT time when the Holy Spirit did His work that way... it's still the Holy Spirit at work... God willed it, the Holy Spirit enabled Samson to perform it.

In him, outside of him... what's the difference when God's will be done?

Brother Mark
Jul 4th 2008, 05:21 PM
Came upon or rested upon or stirred him, is not the same as IN him.

If I get on a plane I'm in trouble when it takes off....but if I get in the plane I'm all good.

Funny analogy but you get the point that on an in are two different things.

Came upon and empowered! His ability was direct from the Holy Spirit. Jesus himself led Joshua to war. I wonder how many times I will need to say that? The Holy Spirit enabled Israel to go to war. He led them. He even gave them strategy for winning and weapons to use and strength to fight. When they were immersed in the Holy Spirit, they were great warriors.

theleast
Jul 4th 2008, 05:27 PM
That's cause he was of the OT time when the Holy Spirit did His work that way... it's still the Holy Spirit at work... God willed it, the Holy Spirit enabled Samson to perform it.

In him, outside of him... what's the difference when God's will be done?

It's not all that different, I think we agree on that.

The difference is where the covenent resides.

theleast
Jul 4th 2008, 05:29 PM
Came upon and empowered! His ability was direct from the Holy Spirit. Jesus himself led Joshua to war. I wonder how many times I will need to say that? The Holy Spirit enabled Israel to go to war. He led them. He even gave them strategy for winning and weapons to use and strength to fight. When they were immersed in the Holy Spirit, they were great warriors.

Yes they were, under the old covenent.

But we are not under the old, but the new.

What's your take on this...

38Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Brother Mark
Jul 4th 2008, 05:33 PM
Yes they were, under the old covenent.

But we are not under the old, but the new.

What's your take on this...

38Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

I've answered it before. I'll answer it again. One is not to take government responsibility into their own hands. An individual turns the other cheek. Government does not. That's why God also gave us Romans 13.

God's desire for turning the other cheek just didn't happen over night. It was in him from the beginning. He didn't, with the new covenant, just pop up and decide "hey, no need for war, or government or the death penalty". He is consistent in who he is and his ways.

theleast
Jul 4th 2008, 05:40 PM
I've answered it before. I'll answer it again. One is not to take government responsibility into their own hands. An individual turns the other cheek. Government does not. That's why God also gave us Romans 13.

God's desire for turning the other cheek just didn't happen over night. It was in him from the beginning. He didn't, with the new covenant, just pop up and decide "hey, no need for war, or government or the death penalty". He is consistent in who he is and his ways.

You love quoting romans 13.

Lets take a look at the WHOLE chapter and not jsut the first couple verses then.

10Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

Alaska
Jul 4th 2008, 05:40 PM
Using the verse that God doesn't change so war is OK for His people is not rightly dividing the word.

He hasn't changed with regard to executing judgment. In the OT he had his own people do it. In the NT He reserves the right to execute physical violent judgment to himself or he allows the ungodly to do so.
Why don't you justify polygamy as well from the OT? You are justifying violence and killing by the people of God from the OT and throwing out "love your enemies, do good to them that hate you" etc.

Totally off mark.

The priesthood being changed there was made of necessity a change also of the law.

The NT law forbids his people from war etc. The US military is not his people, hence they war and kill and justify themselves by carnal reasoning to do so, including using the OT things to make it out as though they are under His grace, while all along, Paul derclares that if someone justifies themselves by the OT law against the plain teaching of the better NT law then that person is fallen fron grace.
Let the world disobey the things of Jesus, it is on a course to destruction and we are supposed to not be of the world and its ways.
Come out of her my people: stop justifying her ways and using the OT to do it!

The flag is associated with the phrase, for God and country, which includes fighting for God and country. No true Christain can agree with the heresy of killing others made in His image.
Believers who join the military to "defend the flag" know not what manner of spirit they are of.

Brother Mark
Jul 4th 2008, 05:41 PM
You love quoting romans 13.

It's there and it brings balance to your position.


Lets take a look at the WHOLE chapter and not jsut the first couple verses then.

10Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

That is correct. God being Love still sends folks to hell. So we know that Love will do things that we don't like. From Noah's day, through the Law of Moses, into Romans and Revelation we see God killing men that he loves and telling men to kill them as well.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 4th 2008, 05:45 PM
Arguing that they are a bad Christian for not following order? or for following them?

For following them. Christianity supersedes military orders if the orders run contrary to Christianity. In the modern US military, soldiers can do this (reject immoral orders).

theleast
Jul 4th 2008, 05:46 PM
It's there and it brings balance to your position.



That is correct. God being Love still sends folks to hell. So we know that Love will do things that we don't like. From Noah's day, through the Law of Moses, into Romans and Revelation we see God killing men that he loves and telling men to kill them as well.

God decides who to kill and not to kill....not the disciples, apostles, or saints.

If God was so intent on killing and war, I think Paul would have been the perfect candidate to bring about such a war...and yet he only preaches love and charity.

I beg you to pray on this!

Brother Mark
Jul 4th 2008, 05:49 PM
God decides who to kill and not to kill....not the disciples, apostles, or saints.

If God was so intent on killing and war, I think Paul would have been the perfect candidate to bring about such a war...and yet he only preaches love and charity.

I beg you to pray on this!

Prayed on it already. Been where your at (almost but not as far) and left it. Paul wasn't called into government but rather was called as a missionary to the Gentiles. Not all are called as was Samson or Debra.

Alaska
Jul 4th 2008, 06:19 PM
For following them. Christianity supersedes military orders if the orders run contrary to Christianity. In the modern US military, soldiers can do this (reject immoral orders).

The point of the military is to kill the enemy if need be. For a Christian to join the military is immoral because of what is expected.
Jesus in effect stated that those that kill are not His servants.

The falling away: just the fact that a topic of discussion pointing to "love your enemies" is put in the controversial section and Jewel4Christ and others were treated with a shameful disdain for defending Jesus is clear evidence of the falling away from the truth that Paul spoke of.

What's next? Round up the dissenters that believe that Christians shouldn't kill and lock them up in a place like Siberia in Alaska?
Sounds like the inquistion of the 21st century.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 4th 2008, 06:27 PM
The point of the military is to kill the enemy if need be. For a Christian to join the military is immoral because of what is expected.
Jesus in effect stated that those that kill are not His servants.

The falling away: just the fact that a topic of discussion pointing to "love your enemies" is put in the controversial section and Jewel4Christ and others were treated with a shameful disdain for defending Jesus is clear evidence of the falling away from the truth that Paul spoke of.

What's next? Round up the dissenters that believe that Christians shouldn't kill and lock them up in a place like Siberia in Alaska?
Sounds like the inquistion of the 21st century.

I'm not really sure what you're trying to accuse me of, but with that said:

I don't think Christians are forbidden from killing. It would make no sense for God to set up a covenant with Noah on how to deal with murderers (by killing them) and suddenly change His mind with Christians. Noah was just as chosen as Christians are.

Furthermore, the New Testament never comes out and says that we aren't supposed to join the military. The Roman military often required compulsory service, especially for Roman citizens. Thus, when Paul was writing to Romans he could have added a caveat in Romans 13 stating, "Obey your government...unless they call you to war." Yet, he did no such thing and instead indicated that the government has the authority to wage war.

Though I do believe this creates quite a few moral difficulties (such as, if a German was forced into the Nazi army, was he doing the right thing?), this seems to be the best definition.

A person can be a faithful Christian and serve in the military, regardless of the nation.

I recognize that those who believe in pacifism will disagree with me. Though I believe such views of pacifism are misguided, I respect those that hold them and believe they are entitled to hold them. I don't see any reason to treat such people with shame, so long as they're respectful in their discourse.

Brother Mark
Jul 4th 2008, 06:31 PM
I'm not really sure what you're trying to accuse me of, but with that said:

I don't think Christians are forbidden from killing. It would make no sense for God to set up a covenant with Noah on how to deal with murderers (by killing them) and suddenly change His mind with Christians. Noah was just as chosen as Christians are.

Excellent point. If killing were sinful, then God would be a sinner. He instituted the death penalty with Noah, with Moses, in Romans 13 and will kill again in Revelations. It can be found throughout the whole of scripture.


Furthermore, the New Testament never comes out and says that we aren't supposed to join the military. The Roman military often required compulsory service, especially for Roman citizens. Thus, when Paul was writing to Romans he could have added a caveat in Romans 13 stating, "Obey your government...unless they call you to war." Yet, he did no such thing and instead indicated that the government has the authority to wage war.

Not only that, but when soldiers got saved and asked what they were to do, John the Baptist nor Jesus ever told them not to kill, nor to quit the military.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 4th 2008, 06:37 PM
Excellent point. If killing were sinful, then God would be a sinner. He instituted the death penalty with Noah, with Moses, in Romans 13 and will kill again in Revelations. It can be found throughout the whole of scripture.



Not only that, but when soldiers got saved and asked what they were to do, John the Baptist nor Jesus ever told them not to kill, nor to quit the military.

This is true.

Now here comes the twist (because I love doing this):

This means whenever we fight against a nation and we come across Christians fighting for the opposing army, we should embrace them as brothers and not enemies in combat. They were merely following Scripture. Furthermore, we should pray for our brothers on the opposing side (and even our enemies in general).

This, however, does not negate that Christians can fight in the military and, when called upon, kill for their country. Do I believe this is what God wants? Absolutely not. Do I believe, however, that because of the natural order of things this is sometimes a necessity that God allowed? Absolutely so.

Brother Mark
Jul 4th 2008, 06:41 PM
This is true.

Now here comes the twist (because I love doing this):

This means whenever we fight against a nation and we come across Christians fighting for the opposing army, we should embrace them as brothers and not enemies in combat. They were merely following Scripture. Furthermore, we should pray for our brothers on the opposing side (and even our enemies in general).

This, however, does not negate that Christians can fight in the military and, when called upon, kill for their country. Do I believe this is what God wants? Absolutely not. Do I believe, however, that because of the natural order of things this is sometimes a necessity that God allowed? Absolutely so.

I agree. My tie with fellow believers far exceeds my tie with my fellow countrymen.

Alaska
Jul 4th 2008, 06:59 PM
I can see the possibility of Christians turning on Christians like in the inquisition: Those declaring that Jesus changed what God allowed men to do under the OT, concerning killing, being persecuted by those Paul said are fallen from grace as evidenced by their non compliance to the Gospel of grace that forbids violence.
So since it was done under the OT it is OK now to do it under the NT?
If a Christian can receive a "calling" to kill the enemy like Samson, as suggested by Mark, then why not agree to the "calling" to have a couple of wives? Like Abraham, the friend of God and father of faith.

The position taken on this thread to allow disallowed things from the OT is exactly the conflict that Paul went through as seen in Rom. and Gal. by those who would bring themselves back under the bondage of the OT law. Though no man is justified by the law, there are those here who will adamantly assert that they are in fact justified by it.

This thread should be shown to Bible students as a lesson of the depth of error caused by not allowing the fulfilment of the OT, as revealed by the NT, to reign.

Brother Mark
Jul 4th 2008, 07:01 PM
I can see the possibility of Christians turning on Christians like in the inquisition: Those declaring that Jesus changed what God allowed men to do under the OT, concerning killing, being persecuted by those Paul said are fallen from grace as evidenced by their non compliance to the Gospel of grace that forbids violence.
So since it was done under the OT it is OK now to do it under the NT?
If a Christian can receive a "calling" to kill the enemy like Samson, as suggested by Mark, then why not agree to the "calling" to have a couple of wives? Like Abraham, the friend of God and father of faith.

The position taken on this thread to allow disallowed things from the OT is exactly the conflict that Paul went through as seen in Rom. and Gal. by those who would bring themselves back under the bondage of the OT law. Though no man is justified by the law, there are those here who will adamantly assert that they are in fact justified by it.

This thread should be shown to Bible students as a lesson of the depth of error caused by not allowing the fulfilment of the OT, as revealed by the NT, to reign.

It has been shown over and over again that God killed in the OT and the NT. The command wasn't done away with but rather re-enforced.

As for the multiple wives thing, you keep bringing that up. God established, pre-law that multiple wives was not the right way. That never changed even though the kings did it.

On the other hand, the death penalty started with Noah, was found in the Law of Moses, and was re-iterated in the NT.

theleast
Jul 4th 2008, 07:39 PM
What's next? Round up the dissenters that believe that Christians shouldn't kill and lock them up in a place like Siberia in Alaska?
Sounds like the inquistion of the 21st century.

Stoning in the streets, beheadings, delivering up to the courts, and all the things that the saints that came before us had to endure.

Get ready for it because once the tribulation starts the real persecution begins.

The time of the later rain is at hand.

theleast
Jul 4th 2008, 07:43 PM
I agree. My tie with fellow believers far exceeds my tie with my fellow countrymen.

Then if your ties with other believers exceeds your ties with countrymen, why not abandon ardent patriotism and fight with the sword of truth instead of a gun?

For that is the duty of a disciple of Christ, to follow him on the same path he walked. Not to stray a bit left or right, but on that same path.

Did Christ kill anybody?

theleast
Jul 4th 2008, 07:44 PM
It has been shown over and over again that God killed in the OT and the NT. The command wasn't done away with but rather re-enforced.

As for the multiple wives thing, you keep bringing that up. God established, pre-law that multiple wives was not the right way. That never changed even though the kings did it.

On the other hand, the death penalty started with Noah, was found in the Law of Moses, and was re-iterated in the NT.

Did God kill?

Or did the law?

Perhaps the subject for a new thread.

Brother Mark
Jul 4th 2008, 07:44 PM
Then if your ties with other believers exceeds your ties with countrymen, why not abandon ardent patriotism and fight with the sword of truth instead of a gun?

For that is the duty of a disciple of Christ, to follow him on the same path he walked. Not to stray a bit left or right, but on that same path.

Did Christ kill anybody?

Yes Jesus has killed many people. He killed all those in Sodom and of course, we have the flood. Not to mention those he empowered through his Spirit to kill that are mentioned in the OT and again in the NT.

theleast
Jul 4th 2008, 07:45 PM
Yes Jesus has killed many people. He killed all those in Sodom and of course, we have the flood. Not to mention those he empowered through his Spirit to kill that are mentioned in the OT and again in the NT.

Isn't this oneness doctrine?

Brother Mark
Jul 4th 2008, 07:47 PM
Isn't this oneness doctrine?

Nope. Just making a point that Jesus and God think alike. And if you go back and look, I believe it was Jesus that was eating with Abraham when he spoke of destroying Sodom.

But knowing oneness doctrine, and knowing that some don't believe in the Trinity, if God did it, then to them, it was Jesus.

Alaska
Jul 4th 2008, 07:54 PM
On the other hand, the death penalty started with Noah, was found in the Law of Moses, and was re-iterated in the NT.

An indirect reference to the fact that God allows worldly governments to execute the death penalty is a far cry from the assumption that the Christian nation, that is supposed to be separate from the world, can kill.
The sister reference to Rom. 13 is Pet 2:13.
To obey every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake cannot be construed to mean go to war and kill which Jesus said is not to be done by those under the NT. The world does not accept Jesus' terms of service to Him and are hence not under His NT.
Rom 13 is an acknowledgment that governments are allowed to exist under God's overall control. That does not mean Christians are to obey their ordinances that oppose Christianity.
Obviously our definition of Christianity is very different and hence the disagreement.
Paul made reference to "another" Jesus in two places. I believe that that is what you are promoting as you probably believe the same about me.

Gal. 4:
29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.

Paul is equating the son of the bondwoman to those under the OT and the son of the freewoman to those subject to the liberating teaching of the NT.


Gal. 4:

22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.
28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.

In the next chapter he says that those Christians who are gone back to things of the OT that are not in agreement with the NT (justified by the OT law), are fallen from grace.

Gal. 5:
1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.

3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.

4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

Not just circumcision but anything else that the NT has made obsolete.
In the sermon on the mount Jesus makes obsolete the act of killing or revenge. "But I say to you..."

The response to this will be a total disregard to Jesus', "but I say to you..."

theleast
Jul 4th 2008, 08:02 PM
Nope. Just making a point that Jesus and God think alike. And if you go back and look, I believe it was Jesus that was eating with Abraham when he spoke of destroying Sodom.

But knowing oneness doctrine, and knowing that some don't believe in the Trinity, if God did it, then to them, it was Jesus.

This is just a word game, lets abandon this thought.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 4th 2008, 08:05 PM
I can see the possibility of Christians turning on Christians like in the inquisition: Those declaring that Jesus changed what God allowed men to do under the OT, concerning killing, being persecuted by those Paul said are fallen from grace as evidenced by their non compliance to the Gospel of grace that forbids violence.
So since it was done under the OT it is OK now to do it under the NT?
If a Christian can receive a "calling" to kill the enemy like Samson, as suggested by Mark, then why not agree to the "calling" to have a couple of wives? Like Abraham, the friend of God and father of faith.

The position taken on this thread to allow disallowed things from the OT is exactly the conflict that Paul went through as seen in Rom. and Gal. by those who would bring themselves back under the bondage of the OT law. Though no man is justified by the law, there are those here who will adamantly assert that they are in fact justified by it.

This thread should be shown to Bible students as a lesson of the depth of error caused by not allowing the fulfilment of the OT, as revealed by the NT, to reign.

I think you need to drop the martyr complex mate. No one here has suggested that pacified Christians are somehow not Christians. Furthermore, the entirety of the OT was never done away with. You can't find one passage of Scripture that says it was done away with and if you did, then Christianity would be false (because you can't have the NT without the OT).

In fact, when Paul wrote to Timothy to say that all Scripture is inspired, he no doubt was referring to the OT, considering that is all that was available at that time.

You cannot jettison the OT simply because we have arbitrarily called it "old."

More importantly, however, I think this discussion would go much more smoothly if you would drop the "persecution" rhetoric from your posts when no one has persecuted you.

Alaska
Jul 4th 2008, 08:31 PM
I think you need to drop the martyr complex mate. No one here has suggested that pacified Christians are somehow not Christians. Furthermore, the entirety of the OT was never done away with. You can't find one passage of Scripture that says it was done away with and if you did, then Christianity would be false (because you can't have the NT without the OT).

In fact, when Paul wrote to Timothy to say that all Scripture is inspired, he no doubt was referring to the OT, considering that is all that was available at that time.

You cannot jettison the OT simply because we have arbitrarily called it "old."

More importantly, however, I think this discussion would go much more smoothly if you would drop the "persecution" rhetoric from your posts when no one has persecuted you.



I am calling for a rightly dividing of scripture not a jettisoning of scripture.
All of the OT is factual history, not to be jettisoned.
The NT specifically calls it old, even crucified. But that is not written with regard to its historical absolute accuracy. It is written with regard to what the OT provided by way of man being able to become right with God.

With regard to it being compared to what the NT has brought concerning the "new man", the glory attributed to the OT, as glorious as it was, is actually now "no glory".

This "new" man's behaviour is deemed heretical, in effect, by those here contradicting Jesus' command to not kill.
And yes, the assertion that the Christian can kill is likewise seen as heretical by those who treasure Christ's words in Matt. 5.

We have already seen the abuse thrown at Jewel4for Christ and others on the previous thread. Don't try to claim there is no mentality of persecution by at least some of the advocates of killing. The reference to persecution is a general reference to the anticipated reaction of the flesh as has been previously manifest. Don't take it personally, especially since your demeanor has not been as others who have been offended and irate and abusive.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 4th 2008, 08:35 PM
can you quote any scripture validating this? I provided a scripture that shows the spiritual aspects of the OT are still valid. Was Paul wrong?

Alaska
Jul 4th 2008, 08:46 PM
There are plenty of scriptures to validate.
What scripture did you refer to? and perhaps discussing this with concise questions you would like to see answered would be a better way to prove the correct understanding of the difference between the OT and NT with regard to the obligation placed on the people of God now and how those obligations are a fulfillment of the OT as Jesus said.

pinky
Jul 4th 2008, 09:40 PM
Mat 24:4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.
7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places. 8 All these are the beginning of sorrows.
9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.
10 And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.
11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.
13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.




Luk 3:14 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Luk/Luk003.html#14) And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.


Pro 10:11 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Pro/Pro010.html#11) The mouth of a righteous man is a well of life: but violence covereth the mouth of the wicked.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 4th 2008, 09:45 PM
Here (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1697594#post1697594) is my reply, so as to avoid chasing a rabbit in this thread.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 4th 2008, 09:52 PM
Luk 3:14 And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.


This is a problem with the translation.

The Greek word is diaseio, which means to not extort people for their money through brutality or threats. This was common among Roman soldiers at the time - thus Christ is telling them that such a practice is not one they should engage in.

This fits with the rest of the passage, saying to "be content with their wages" and not to "falsely accuse people" (another tactic used to extort money from civilians).

If He meant soldierly violence - such as in battle - then He would have used the word bia or biazo, both of which mean to inflict bodily harm upon someone. The fact that He didn't use this word - when He could have - seems to indicate that Christ believed soldiers had a duty to fulfill in warfare.

Slug1
Jul 5th 2008, 12:02 AM
This is a problem with the translation.

The Greek word is diaseio, which means to not extort people for their money through brutality or threats. This was common among Roman soldiers at the time - thus Christ is telling them that such a practice is not one they should engage in.

This fits with the rest of the passage, saying to "be content with their wages" and not to "falsely accuse people" (another tactic used to extort money from civilians).

If He meant soldierly violence - such as in battle - then He would have used the word bia or biazo, both of which mean to inflict bodily harm upon someone. The fact that He didn't use this word - when He could have - seems to indicate that Christ believed soldiers had a duty to fulfill in warfare.I never had an education to go into the original text but I wrote this in a study on this scripture... guess I'll post it and watch it get ripped apart :rofl:


A series of people begin to ask John questions about what they should do and John answers them all. Eventually a group of soldiers ask John what should they do and John answers in v14;
14Likewise the soldiers asked him, saying, “And what shall we do?”
So he said to them, “Do not intimidate anyone or accuse falsely, and be content with your wages.”

We see that John instructs the soldiers of three things. First he tells them not to intimidate anyone. A soldier is person in a position of authority and in the times of Jesus and now for that matter, could use this authority to take advantage of or intimidate others. Second he tells them not to accuse anyone falsely. In combat a soldier is trained to destroy the enemy and an enemy soldier who has surrendered or has been rendered combat ineffective is no longer an enemy combatant and cannot be engaged. In effect, if any soldier then or even today was to engage such a non-combatant then they would be effectively falsely accusing this enemy. Today such an action would result in charges of murder or a war crime.

Lastly, John tells the soldiers to be content with their wages. Not once does John inform these soldiers that they should leave the profession they are in. As I continue with future additions to this study we will find that this is a common fact in all situations where soldiers or centurions are found in scripture. Not once are any of them told to leave their profession as a soldier.

What does this mean for you as a soldier today? It means for you to be happy with your wages, not to take advantage of others, and not to accuse anyone falsely. Doesn’t mean it’s wrong or even a sin to be a soldier. If it was, why did John not take this chance to inform us that if it was even the slightest sin to be a soldier, to bring that fact out while answering the soldiers.

pinky
Jul 5th 2008, 12:42 AM
In combat a soldier is trained to destroy the enemy .......


Yes. Precisely.

Where does Jesus tell us to 'destroy' our emenies?

If you can show me this, I will say no more on the subject.

This would be more effective than telling us what He meant by what He didn't say.

Respectfully,
pinky

apothanein kerdos
Jul 5th 2008, 12:50 AM
I never had an education to go into the original text but I wrote this in a study on this scripture... guess I'll post it and watch it get ripped apart :rofl:

Well I don't think it needs to be ripped apart. Factually, there are some errors - the explanation of falsely accusing someone. Roman soldiers, often ill-content with their wages, would threaten to falsely accuse civilians if the civilians wouldn't pay extra coinage. The reason for this is the Roman soldier's testimony was viewed as higher than the average person's testimony, especially in Roman provinces (such as Judea) where the conquered peoples were not viewed or given Roman citizenship.

In essence, Jesus is telling these soldiers to cease abusing citizens for money and to be content with the money they have been given. You are very correct to note that He never commands them to leave the military - this is an instance where the argument from silence does work because the silence is deafening.


Where does Jesus tell us to 'destroy' our emenies?

If you can show me this, I will say no more on the subject.

This would be more effective than telling us what He meant by what He didn't say.

It is not up to us to prove that He ever said this. We haven't made a claim, other than the fact that Jesus (nor the Bible) ever addresses military service. In light of this, we are not making an authoritarian statement, thus we don't need anything to back up what we are saying. You, on the other hand, are arguing that the Bible expressly forbids Christians from serving in the military. Therefore, in order to validate your claim you need to provide evidence that backs up your contention.

Though we are called to be peaceable in our personal relationships, the Bible is very silent on the issue of if Christians can serve in the military. Since it is silent, we cannot be quick to make judgments on Christians that choose to serve in the military.

Slug1
Jul 5th 2008, 12:56 AM
Yes. Precisely.

Where does Jesus tell us to 'destroy' our emenies?

If you can show me this, I will say no more on the subject.

This would be more effective than telling us what He meant by what He didn't say.

Respectfully,
pinkyRead the whole thing. It was John the Baptist who's job it was to prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for Him. So when the soldiers ask him that question, if it's wrong for a person giving their heart to Jesus and remain a soldier then John would have told them. Otherwise the prophecy from Isaiah would have no meaning.

That's the thing, all through scripture we have many situations where Jesus and various men of God addressed soldiers and not once where any of these opportunities used to tell a soldier that they need to step down.

Why not? If it's wrong for a soldier to serve then why not tell them that? Why did a soldier receive the Baptism of the Holy Spirit before his water baptism if he's doing something God doesn't want a faithful servant doing? Why did Jesus, Himself bless a centurion and not take the opportunity to say... "Your faith has healed your servant now lets discuss this job of yours..."

OK, I can go but won't :lol:

Slug1
Jul 5th 2008, 12:58 AM
Well I don't think it needs to be ripped apart. Factually, there are some errors - the explanation of falsely accusing someone. Roman soldiers, often ill-content with their wages, would threaten to falsely accuse civilians if the civilians wouldn't pay extra coinage. The reason for this is the Roman soldier's testimony was viewed as higher than the average person's testimony, especially in Roman provinces (such as Judea) where the conquered peoples were not viewed or given Roman citizenship. Guess I could have added more examples ;)

pinky
Jul 5th 2008, 01:27 AM
In light of this, we are not making an authoritarian statement, thus we don't need anything to back up what we are saying.





Thanks fer the chuckle.

Brother Mark
Jul 5th 2008, 01:31 AM
Yes. Precisely.

Where does Jesus tell us to 'destroy' our emenies?

If you can show me this, I will say no more on the subject.

This would be more effective than telling us what He meant by what He didn't say.

Respectfully,
pinky

God said it. Does that count? He told King Saul to destroy all the Amalekites. There's more than that one time too. And of course, we see in Romans 13 that government is meant to wield the sword against evil.

pinky
Jul 5th 2008, 01:38 AM
Mat 5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.



Mat 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.






Ye have heard that it hath been said in OT times.............but Jesus has a New Covenant, a new way, a better way.

If you want to talk about what Jesus 'doesn't say'......notice He doesn't say "except in wartime"?


1 Pe 2:21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:
22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:
23 Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:





Peace and Good night,
pinky

Brother Mark
Jul 5th 2008, 01:55 AM
Ye have heard that it hath been said in OT times.............but Jesus has a New Covenant, a new way, a better way.

If you want to talk about what Jesus 'doesn't say'......notice He doesn't say "except in wartime"?

Romans 13 still stands. I can't find it in the OT where God told man to hate his enemies. God's character concerning love did not change when the NT came about. He's just like he was in the OT.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 5th 2008, 01:56 AM
Thanks fer the chuckle.

It's a matter of logical argumentation - if you claim that A proposes B, you need to provide C to validate the connection between your claim and the proposed argument.

Secondly, Matthew 5 is dealing with personal matters, not matters that deal with the government. It we were to apply it across the board, it would contradict with Romans 13.

theleast
Jul 5th 2008, 02:56 AM
You know what I've noticed?

Those of us advocating peace have quoted many different NT scriptures proving peace is the chosen path for the Christian.

The war advocates have a vague reference in Romans 13.

Those advocating peace use the new covenent argument to refute the OT scriptures.

The war advocates use OT scripture.

So that's as far as we are going to go with these arguments at this point.


To me more importantly than ALL the rest, before this discussion goes any further, and if this discussion matters to you, is to make sure we all agree on one thing.

Which covenent we are under. If we all agree we are on the new covenent, then how can we continue to use OT law to prove our points, when we are under the new covenent?

And if you are claiming the old covenent applies to us, then we are going to need a whole new thread for that...lol.

theleast
Jul 5th 2008, 02:58 AM
It's a matter of logical argumentation - if you claim that A proposes B, you need to provide C to validate the connection between your claim and the proposed argument.

Secondly, Matthew 5 is dealing with personal matters, not matters that deal with the government. It we were to apply it across the board, it would contradict with Romans 13.

Matthew 5 applies to both.

There are many layers to scripture.

What does this verse mean to you...

He that loveth his life shall lose it

apothanein kerdos
Jul 5th 2008, 03:04 AM
hose of us advocating peace have quoted many different NT scriptures proving peace is the chosen path for the Christian.

When quoting Scripture, it's not the quantity, but the quality of use. You can quote 100 scriptures to back up your position, but if you don't understand all 100, haven't studied them, or are simply misapplying them, then not a single one counts.


The war advocates have a vague reference in Romans 13.

It's not really all that vague.


Those advocating peace use the new covenent argument to refute the OT scriptures.

Which is actually a heresy - it comes from the Gnostic belief that the New Testament god is better than the Old Testament god (which was, according to the Gnostics, a fallen aeon).

The idea that the OT is somehow submissive or can be refuted by the NT comes from Gnosticism and/or an Enlightenment understanding of the Bible.


To me more importantly than ALL the rest, before this discussion goes any further, and if this discussion matters to you, is to make sure we all agree on one thing.

Which covenent we are under. If we all agree we are on the new covenent, then how can we continue to use OT law to prove our points, when we are under the new covenent?

And if you are claiming the old covenent applies to us, then we are going to need a whole new thread for that...lol.

It's a false dichotomy - the old testament is not the old covenant.

However, for this issue, I've already created a topic (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=130937) and, in my opinion, destroyed the Gnostic heresy being supported by yourself and others. My apologies on using such harsh terminology, but it is the most adequate way I can think of to help to show you the severity of what you're saying.

Pacifism isn't a heresy, but saying the OT is somehow invalidated because of the NT is a heresy.


There are many layers to scripture.

A scripture can only mean a few things at the most - one or two. Though it can be applied in a number of ways, it can only mean one or two things. There aren't "multiple layers" - that's a postmodern interpretation drawn from the new hermeneutic via Derrida.

jewel4Christ
Jul 5th 2008, 03:10 AM
Pacifism isn't a heresy, but saying the OT is somehow invalidated because of the NT is a heresy.

Scripture please?

The new testament itself states we have a better covenant, not based on the old.

Are we to throw that out, to support this?

I agree that God from the BEGINNING told man to choose life or death, pre law.

He promised that if man chose death, the curse would come..which it did, through the law, thereby making the old covenant in need of something...

A way OUT OF IT.

To say that this is heresy, is as far from the truth as one can go, in mho.


peaceandlove,

janet

danield
Jul 5th 2008, 03:11 AM
I put God before my country.

Exodus 20:3 3 ∂ "You must not have any other God but me.

He has to be first in my life in all things.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 5th 2008, 03:14 AM
Scripture please?

The new testament itself states we have a better covenant, not based on the old.

Are we to throw that out, to support this?

I agree that God from the BEGINNING told man to choose life or death, pre law.

He promised that if man chose death, the curse would come..which it did, through the law, thereby making the old covenant in need of something...

A way OUT OF IT.

To say that this is heresy, is as far from the truth as one can go, in mho.


peaceandlove,

janet

Did you not see I created a topic for this that explains my position? Please keep your discussion on this point over in that topic.

Also, if you're going to reply, please don't "shoot from the hip."

jewel4Christ
Jul 5th 2008, 03:19 AM
Hi,

I will go look at your thread, but< I don't shoot from the hip. I speak straight forward, always.......:D

peaceandlove,

janet

theleast
Jul 5th 2008, 01:16 PM
Pacifism isn't a heresy, but saying the OT is somehow invalidated because of the NT is a heresy.





10For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

11And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
12For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. 13In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Some scripture to refute your heresy attack on my character.

I am no heretic....if I say it I have scripture to back it.

Perhaps you should do the same.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 5th 2008, 01:43 PM
10For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

11And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
12For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. 13In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Some scripture to refute your heresy attack on my character.

I am no heretic....if I say it I have scripture to back it.

Perhaps you should do the same.


Once again, I have created another topic for this (I even responded to that verse in the topic).

Eaglenester
Jul 5th 2008, 01:47 PM
Yes in the OT Yahweh had his people go to war - but ONLY when the leader was directly led by Him - and the people knew it.

Do you think our current President, who isn't a true christian, was directly led by Yahweh - NOT A CHANCE

How about the previous President?

And the Romans 13 thing doesn't work - Iraq is NOT about "justice"

apothanein kerdos
Jul 5th 2008, 01:53 PM
Yes in the OT Yahweh had his people go to war - but ONLY when the leader was directly led by Him - and the people knew it.

Do you think our current President, who isn't a true christian, was directly led by Yahweh - NOT A CHANCE

How about the previous President?

And the Romans 13 thing doesn't work - Iraq is NOT about "justice"

Then how do you explain the various passages when God directed foreign armies to go to war against Israel? In these instances we do not have God directly telling the leader to go to war (since the leader did not know God, he was not directly led by God). Thus your premise isn't necessarily true.

Furthermore, Romans 13 and 2 Peter 2 both indicate that we are to be submissive to our governments; this is the Will of God. No one, as far as I know, has said anything about Iraq or justice.

You're right, Iraq isn't a justifiable war and America shouldn't be involved...what's your point? How does that relate to this discussion? How does that somehow nullify Romans 13 or 2 Peter 2? In this case, you are just a guilty as the ardent patriot for wrapping your Christianity in the American flag - you assume you have a right to rebel against a government that hasn't caused you to stumble in your faith, or required you to deny your faith.

Eaglenester
Jul 5th 2008, 02:19 PM
Then how do you explain the various passages when God directed foreign armies to go to war against Israel? In these instances we do not have God directly telling the leader to go to war (since the leader did not know God, he was not directly led by God). Thus your premise isn't necessarily true.

Furthermore, Romans 13 and 2 Peter 2 both indicate that we are to be submissive to our governments; this is the Will of God. No one, as far as I know, has said anything about Iraq or justice.

You're right, Iraq isn't a justifiable war and America shouldn't be involved...what's your point? How does that relate to this discussion? How does that somehow nullify Romans 13 or 2 Peter 2? In this case, you are just a guilty as the ardent patriot for wrapping your Christianity in the American flag - you assume you have a right to rebel against a government that hasn't caused you to stumble in your faith, or required you to deny your faith.

Voicing my opinion against the works of this nation is NOT violating those Scripture because we have that freedom here.
So I am still obedient to the leaders and laws.

When Yahweh used other countries it was to come against Israel - we don't fit that at ALL because we are not coming against Israel, and those nations He used were evil ones.

And Romans 13 has been used by some here to justify our military actions against other nations.

Slug1
Jul 5th 2008, 02:22 PM
And Romans 13 has been used by some here to justify our military actions against other nations.That is because that is God's authorization to the leaders of nations to use it's citizens for protection of it's citizens. If a nation is threatened it is responsible to it's people to protect them. God uses this to avenge against the evil in the world. As small as the evil may be (a criminal) or large (another nation).

pinky
Jul 5th 2008, 02:32 PM
Rom 8:5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''


Rev 17:2 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Rev/Rev017.html#2) With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.


Rev 16:14 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Rev/Rev016.html#14) For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.



Rev 6:4 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Rev/Rev006.html#4) And there went out another horse that was red: and power was given to him that sat thereon to take peace from the earth, and that they should kill one another: and there was given unto him a great sword.


Mat 24:4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many
6 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Mat/Mat024.html#6) And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.




Mat 24:10 And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.
11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.




Mat 24:48 But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming;
49 And shall begin to smite his fellowservants, and to eat and drink with the drunken;
50 The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of,
51 And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.





Mat 24:37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,




Gen 6:11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.

Gen 6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 5th 2008, 02:33 PM
You're still playing fast and loose with the Scriptures. You seem to be stating that a government is only justified if and only if:

(1) God Himself is guiding the nation

(2) The nation is being used against Israel as punishment

This, however, doesn't fit with the scriptures. We have various passages in the Histories of the Old Testament where Israel went to war without the direct command of God and won (and there was no condemnation for going). Psalm 144:1 shows that God prepares David's hands for battle. Proverbs 20:18 and 24:6 show that one is to seek guidance (military guidance) before going to war - but not that it doesn't prohibit going to war if the two conditions you list (stated above) are not present. Ecclesiastes 3:8 says there's a time for war. I could go on and on showing that the Bible never comes out and forbids war, but instead accepts that it will occur.

Now this doesn't mean war is preferable. Obviously, when the New Earth is established there will no longer be war (Isaiah 2:4). At the same time, we need to understand that war is sometimes a necessity this side of eternity.

Would you have preferred the United States stayed out of WWII? Is it wrong that we're in Afghanistan?

Again, your argument on Iraq is fruitless and pointless - no one is even arguing about Iraq because it's utterly irrelevant to the discussion.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 5th 2008, 02:34 PM
Rom 8:5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''


Rev 17:2 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Rev/Rev017.html#2) With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.


Rev 16:14 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Rev/Rev016.html#14) For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.



Rev 6:4 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Rev/Rev006.html#4) And there went out another horse that was red: and power was given to him that sat thereon to take peace from the earth, and that they should kill one another: and there was given unto him a great sword.


Mat 24:4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many
6 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Mat/Mat024.html#6) And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.




Mat 24:10 And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.
11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.




Mat 24:48 But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming;
49 And shall begin to smite his fellowservants, and to eat and drink with the drunken;
50 The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of,
51 And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.





Mat 24:37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,




Gen 6:11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.

Gen 6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

And? What are you trying to say? That the world is a violent place? That war is a natural result of the Fall? That war is not preferable and is an evil that has befallen the world?

No one is arguing anything to the contrary - but war is necessary in a fallen world. God has ordained it many times.

Slug1
Jul 5th 2008, 02:39 PM
And? What are you trying to say? That the world is a violent place? That war is a natural result of the Fall? That war is not preferable and is an evil that has befallen the world?

No one is arguing anything to the contrary - but war is necessary in a fallen world. God has ordained it many times.Not to mention that Jesus will lead the final war :pp

Eaglenester
Jul 5th 2008, 02:42 PM
That is because that is God's authorization to the leaders of nations to use it's citizens for protection of it's citizens. If a nation is threatened it is responsible to it's people to protect them. God uses this to avenge against the evil in the world. As small as the evil may be (a criminal) or large (another nation).

And evil leaders are then justified in going to war to "protect" it's people.

So Iran could then be justified in attacking America because it sees us as a threat to them as we are talking the possibility of attacking them.

Every nation and leader justifies it's war actions on other nations.

Also a side note - Roman soldiers also functioned as the police force, and prison guards - not just military, they were all grouped together.

Slug1
Jul 5th 2008, 02:54 PM
And evil leaders are then justified in going to war to "protect" it's people.

So Iran could then be justified in attacking America because it sees us as a threat to them as we are talking the possibility of attacking them.

Every nation and leader justifies it's war actions on other nations.

Also a side note - Roman soldiers also functioned as the police force, and prison guards - not just military, they were all grouped together.Just like WWII, a leader "abused" the responsibility to the authorization that God gave to leaders. Hitler was swayed by satan and God then used nations of the world to take that evil down. Took a major attack against the US for us to get back within the will of God, just as it did this time with 9/11. In both cases, WWII and the GWOT, if nations aren't willing to fight against the forces used by satan God will let them be run over and overcome or they get within the will of God and fight back... again it took an attack to get us within the will of God.

Iran is swayed by satan just as Hitler was and the target is the same as it was with Hitler, the nation of Israel. Do you actually think that God is gonna let satan wipe out His people a second time? No, He's gonna raise such a force against this that it's gonna make your head spin :lol: OR, we'll see Israel do their thing with a concentrated strike and wipe the threat out. As you see God raising a military force that will be powerful enough to take the evil down. He will use the men and women of any military force willing to be obediant to this and since the US is the most powerful nation to accomplish this, God will ensure we remain obedient to this and if we slack off, expect another attack to be allowed by God to hurt us... God purpose for 9/11 as it ws for Pearl Harbor was to get us online with His will... If we pull off the offense against today's threat to the world and the Israeli nation and satan is allowed to roll over everyone and turn everyone into muslims and kill all those that won't convert... what does Jesus have to return to? God's gonna fight off this plan of satan and use us, the USA and any other nation's He deems necessary to fight satan until He send's Jesus down to earth to handle satan Himself.

Unfortunately I feel before the US is willing to be fully within the will of God and take the war to Iran it will require a terrible attack, of nuke like proportions on US soil for us to be fully obedient.

pinky
Jul 5th 2008, 03:05 PM
Originally Posted by Eaglenester http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1698114#post1698114)
And Romans 13 has been used by some here to justify our military actions against other nations.


Yes, and it is a flimsy argument imho.

Rom 13 is admonishing us to refrain from rebellion against our leaders. It is not saying it is permissible to kill for them or follow them in their iniquity............. as is being suggested.


I suppose by this logic we can have abortions and be homosexual because our governments support that too??

pinky
Jul 5th 2008, 03:12 PM
I'm curious how many of the war supporters here are also 'Christian -Zionists'?

:hmm:

Eaglenester
Jul 5th 2008, 03:23 PM
Just like WWII, a leader "abused" the responsibility to the authorization that God gave to leaders. Hitler was swayed by satan and God then used nations of the world to take that evil down. Took a major attack against the US for us to get back within the will of God, just as it did this time with 9/11. In both cases, WWII and the GWOT, if nations aren't willing to fight against the forces used by satan God will let them be run over and overcome or they get within the will of God and fight back... again it took an attack to get us within the will of God.

Iran is swayed by satan just as Hitler was and the target is the same as it was with Hitler, the nation of Israel. Do you actually think that God is gonna let satan wipe out His people a second time? No, He's gonna raise such a force against this that it's gonna make your head spin :lol: OR, we'll see Israel do their thing with a concentrated strike and wipe the threat out. As you see God raising a military force that will be powerful enough to take the evil down. He will use the men and women of any military force willing to be obediant to this and since the US is the most powerful nation to accomplish this, God will ensure we remain obedient to this and if we slack off, expect another attack to be allowed by God to hurt us... God purpose for 9/11 as it ws for Pearl Harbor was to get us online with His will... If we pull off the offense against today's threat to the world and the Israeli nation and satan is allowed to roll over everyone and turn everyone into muslims and kill all those that won't convert... what does Jesus have to return to? God's gonna fight off this plan of satan and use us, the USA and any other nation's He deems necessary to fight satan until He send's Jesus down to earth to handle satan Himself.

Unfortunately I feel before the US is willing to be fully within the will of God and take the war to Iran it will require a terrible attack, of nuke like proportions on US soil for us to be fully obedient.

And our current leader is ALSO swayed by satan - he is not a true born again follower of Messiah, and claims to be led by a "higher spirital authority (a god)
Well if it;s not Yahweh, that leaves only the enemy.

You see America as God's - and He needs to have it protected.
I DON'T

apothanein kerdos
Jul 5th 2008, 03:27 PM
So Iran could then be justified in attacking America because it sees us as a threat to them as we are talking the possibility of attacking them.

You're right, they would. What's your point?

In their attack we would likewise be justified to strike back. So what is your point?


Also a side note - Roman soldiers also functioned as the police force, and prison guards - not just military, they were all grouped together.

This is a fallacy. In Judea there were already temple guards. Likewise, the soldiers that did act as police were generally the "lesser" Roman soldiers. The Centurion that went to Jesus (and Jesus never told to leave the army) would have been an actual field soldier.

Furthermore, it's really a moot point. Police still have to use violence - if all wars are wrong then, presumably, so are all police actions that use violence.


Rom 13 is admonishing us to refrain from rebellion against our leaders. It is not saying it is permissible to kill for them or follow them in their iniquity............. as is being suggested.


I suppose by this logic we can have abortions and be homosexual because our governments support that too??

Before you can even make such an absurd correlation, you would first have to prove that abortions and homosexuality are on the same level as killing. Considering God killed in the Old Testament we can say that killing is not on the same level as abortion or homosexuality.

It works this way:

(A) God wouldn't commit an immoral act that is immoral in all situations
(B) God killed in the Old Testament (and New Testament)
(C) Therefore, killing is not immoral in all situations


I'm curious how many of the war supporters here are also 'Christian -Zionists'?
Meaning that I believe the Jewish people are still chosen and that God has ordained physical Israel to exist? If so, yes, that' me. My apologies for not jumping on "2,000 years of Christian anti-semitism" bandwagon.

If you wish to discuss this, I will most certainly start another topic.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 5th 2008, 03:31 PM
Eagle, because of your lack of understanding in the Scriptures, you're not a Christian.

That sure is harsh of me, isn't it? In fact, if I left the comment there many of the moderators would probably delete the post (and would be justified in doing so).

Likewise, it is not up to you to declare who is and isn't a Christian. Personally, I cannot stand Bush. I think he has been a horrible leader and one of the worst presidents in the history of the United States. I also think his theology is suspect and his practices as president have only confirmed many of these suspicions.

That said, I am still in no position to say he isn't a Christian or that he is being guided by Satan. Just as if Obama is elected - though his theology is heretical and horrible, I cannot say with authority that he is not a Christian (unless he comes out and says as much) and, subsequently, cannot say he is being guided by Satan.

We need to be slow in our judgment - the irony is, in your cry for pacifism, you have become war-like in your pursuit. That is not true pacifism.

theleast
Jul 5th 2008, 03:34 PM
Yes, and it is a flimsy argument imho.

Rom 13 is admonishing us to refrain from rebellion against our leaders. It is not saying it is permissible to kill for them or follow them in their iniquity............. as is being suggested.


I suppose by this logic we can have abortions and be homosexual because our governments support that too??

Good point. I think the argument is not only flimsy but transparant.

Here is an example of what Romans 13 means to me.

Abortion is legal in America. Abortion goes against the will of God and is a form of murder used as birth control for adulterers.

Does that give us the right as Christians to go and blow up abortion clinics?

Of course not, under Romans 13 we are to follow the law. We do not have to RESPECT that law though. That is the difference.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 5th 2008, 03:39 PM
Good point. I think the argument is not only flimsy but transparant.

Here is an example of what Romans 13 means to me.

Abortion is legal in America. Abortion goes against the will of God and is a form of murder used as birth control for adulterers.

Does that give us the right as Christians to go and blow up abortion clinics?

Of course not, under Romans 13 we are to follow the law. We do not have to RESPECT that law though. That is the difference.

Well it doesn't matter what any passage means to you. What matters is what it means.

This means that if the government calls upon us to join the military in compulsory service, we are obligated to do so. Now how we act in that service is up to us (if we intentionally aim our weapons high as to avoid hitting people on the opposing side) - that is up to the individual conscience. However, if called upon, you must go.

That is part of what the passage means.

Eaglenester
Jul 5th 2008, 03:40 PM
Eagle, because of your lack of understanding in the Scriptures, you're not a Christian.

That sure is harsh of me, isn't it? In fact, if I left the comment there many of the moderators would probably delete the post (and would be justified in doing so).

Likewise, it is not up to you to declare who is and isn't a Christian. Personally, I cannot stand Bush. I think he has been a horrible leader and one of the worst presidents in the history of the United States. I also think his theology is suspect and his practices as president have only confirmed many of these suspicions.

That said, I am still in no position to say he isn't a Christian or that he is being guided by Satan. Just as if Obama is elected - though his theology is heretical and horrible, I cannot say with authority that he is not a Christian (unless he comes out and says as much) and, subsequently, cannot say he is being guided by Satan.

We need to be slow in our judgment - the irony is, in your cry for pacifism, you have become war-like in your pursuit. That is not true pacifism.

The reason I say President Bush is not a born-again christian is because of his much spoken theological stance.
He is a universalist, he says all religions follow the same god, that muslims and christians worship the same god, that the koran is equally a "holy book of god" as is the Scriptures.
He celebrates muslim holy days and has worshiped in a buddhist temple.
He has publicly read from the koran and said allah is god.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 5th 2008, 03:43 PM
The reason I say President Bush is not a born-again christian is because of his much spoken theological stance.
He is a universalist, he says all religions follow the same god, that muslims and christians worship the same god, that the koran is equally a "holy book of god" as is the Scriptures.
He celebrates muslim holy days and has worshiped in a buddhist temple.
He has publicly read from the koran and said allah is god.

It looks like my post went over your head (I don't mean that in the intellectual/elitist sense of the idiom, more in the "you're being too hard headed" sense of the idiom).

The point in all of what I was saying is that christians can do some pretty horrible things or live quite carnally - it doesn't necessitate that they haven't been justified, just that they might be slow in their sanctification. It would behoove you to drop your judgmental attitude of someone's salvation.

All of that, however, is off topic.

Slug1
Jul 5th 2008, 04:16 PM
I'm curious how many of the war supporters here are also 'Christian -Zionists'?

:hmm:
What is a Christian Zionist... keep in mind I'm a very simple man ;)

Slug1
Jul 5th 2008, 04:17 PM
And our current leader is ALSO swayed by satan - he is not a true born again follower of Messiah, and claims to be led by a "higher spirital authority (a god)
Well if it;s not Yahweh, that leaves only the enemy.

You see America as God's - and He needs to have it protected.
I DON'T
That's cool, we'll still get used by God no matter what all our opinion's are.

Eaglenester
Jul 5th 2008, 04:21 PM
It looks like my post went over your head (I don't mean that in the intellectual/elitist sense of the idiom, more in the "you're being too hard headed" sense of the idiom).

The point in all of what I was saying is that christians can do some pretty horrible things or live quite carnally - it doesn't necessitate that they haven't been justified, just that they might be slow in their sanctification. It would behoove you to drop your judgmental attitude of someone's salvation.

All of that, however, is off topic.

You missed my point - it's not about carnality or doing terrible things - it's about what he professes to believe


It's his professed beliefs, which are unScriptural, that states he's not of saving faith - and he's not a "new christian" that hasn't learned yet.
He has been informed of and rejected the true Gospel of Messiah - that's why he and Franklyn Graham had a falling out, President Bush rejects the Gospel he presents.

Eaglenester
Jul 5th 2008, 04:23 PM
That's cool, we'll still get used by God no matter what all our opinion's are.

Would you have that opinion if you lived in Iran?

Yahweh uses murder to accomplish His will, that doesn't mean we are to support and applaud it.

theleast
Jul 5th 2008, 04:24 PM
What is a Christian Zionist... keep in mind I'm a very simple man ;)

Christian-Zionists are those who seek the restoration of Israel at all costs as a fulfilling of prophecy.

Unfortunatly for them they don't realize that that prophecy has been fulfilled already and they missed it.

Slug1
Jul 5th 2008, 04:28 PM
Christian-Zionists are those who seek the restoration of Israel at all costs as a fulfilling of prophecy.

Unfortunatly for them they don't realize that that prophecy has been fulfilled already and they missed it.Ah, OK.

Slug1
Jul 5th 2008, 04:30 PM
Would you have that opinion if you lived in Iran?

Yahweh uses murder to accomplish His will, that doesn't mean we are to support and applaud it.I don't so I don't know. Besides if I did, then I'd most likely be muslim and serve a false god anyway. So I'd be on the receiving end of God's wrath through His avengers here on earth when I flexed my muscles with the rest of my nation who follows a false god.

theleast
Jul 5th 2008, 06:50 PM
Scripture for you...

17And God heard the voice of the lad; and the angel of God called to Hagar out of heaven, and said unto her, What aileth thee, Hagar? fear not; for God hath heard the voice of the lad where he is.

18Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him in thine hand; for I will make him a great nation.
19And God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water; and she went, and filled the bottle with water, and gave the lad drink. 20And God was with the lad; and he grew, and dwelt in the wilderness, and became an archer.

Genesis 16:12 (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Genesis+16:12&version=9) (Whole Chapter) (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Genesis+16&version=9)
And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.

Genesis 17:20 (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Genesis+17:20&version=9) (Whole Chapter) (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Genesis+17&version=9)
And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.

So if Ishmael is blessed by God and he is father of a great nation are we sure that his sons don't serve God?

Revelation 17

12And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.

13These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.
14These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.
15And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.
16And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire. 17For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.

Who in the world today hates the Lamb and the whore? Notice that the ones who do fulfill God's will.

And lastly...

13Therefore I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place, in the wrath of the LORD of hosts, and in the day of his fierce anger.

14And it shall be as the chased roe, and as a sheep that no man taketh up: they shall every man turn to his own people, and flee every one into his own land.
15Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword.
16Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished.
17Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, which shall not regard silver; and as for gold, they shall not delight in it.
18Their bows also shall dash the young men to pieces; and they shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eyes shall not spare children. 19And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees' excellency, shall be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah.

The Medes are present day Iran. ;)

Alaska
Jul 5th 2008, 07:31 PM
There is a difference between law and truth.
This can be demonstrated by what the NT says:

For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

As in any society that has to have laws to establish order, accountability and combat crime in the fallen state of mankind after the fall, some of the laws will be there simply to deal with particular situations. They are not necessarily the truth, they just work to accomplish their goal.

In the garden before the fall there was no killing. There was also not the knowledge of right and wrong or good and evil. The choice given to Adam to choose life or death was not on the basis of choosing right and wrong; it was a simpler consequential thing: their choice to either eat or not to eat was what would determine life or death.

After the fall, laws came into being to deal with situations. Many of these laws were not "truth" after the NT definition of truth as seen in the quote above.

Genesis 9:
6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

By man, came sin and death. One of the results of sin entering the world through Adam is that one of the sins that would be committed was the crime of murder. God initiates a law to execute vengeance on the murderer. This was completely unnecessary in the pre-fall world.

Jesus addresses vengeance in Matt. 5:
38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Jesus is basically saying, but I say unto you, No. An eye for an eye in Moses was a reasonable elaboration or continuation of Gen. 9. Jesus is not denying that Gen. 9 was initiated by God. He is bringing in the NT that no longer permits that formerly allowed law, which served as part of the overall schoolmaster role of the OT.

In this chaper 5 of Matt. there are 6 places where Jesus uses a phrase similar to the one above, "but I say unto you" with regard to something from the law that was seen as indisputable by many.
He contradicts former practices that the law justified and reveals the absolute moral "truth" of those topics.

Divorce is one of those topics. It wasn't before the fall and it is not now to be done in Christ.
Revenge is another topic addressed in Matt. 5.
It was not before the fall and it is not to be done now by the children of God.
In fact, all of the things Jesus opposes in Matt. 5 are things we can reasonably conclude would not have been done in the pre-fall world.

The OT law was necessary to deal with mankind in his fallen state. It was not all "truth" though it is true that God allowed those temporarily imposed laws to exist for order etc until Jesus came to bring the NT of revealed truth.

Gal. 3
16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

Paul refers to this temporary service of the OT law again in Heb. 9:

9 Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;
10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.

[The reforming that the NT was to bring was to work for the accomplishment of a good conscience before God.
Hence the conscience-touching truth of Jesus in Matt. 5 and the return to truth as before the fall with regard to things such as divorce and vengeance.]

The law served until Jesus came to bring the truth. God chose to put new wine into new bottles.
Unregenerated man was "shut up from the faith" that was afterward to be reavealed in Christ.
By the NT, Truth was coupled with the regenerating power of the Holy Ghost [which regeneration could only be made available by the death and resurrection of Christ] as new wine must be coupled with new wine skins in order to ensure success.

I suggest that the old wine is cherished because there is not the new wine skin available that can appreciate the new wine.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 5th 2008, 07:36 PM
There is a difference between law and truth.
This can be demonstrated by what the NT says:

For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

As in any society that has to have laws to establish order, accountability and combat crime in the fallen state of mankind after the fall, some of the laws will be there simply to deal with particular situations. They are not necessarily the truth, they just work to accomplish their goal.

In the garden before the fall there was no killing. There was also not the knowledge of right and wrong or good and evil. The choice given to Adam to choose life or death was not on the basis of choosing right and wrong; it was a simpler consequential thing: their choice to either eat or not to eat was what would determine life or death.

After the fall, laws came into being to deal with situations. Many of these laws were not "truth" after the NT definition of truth as seen in the quote above.

Genesis 9:
6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

By man, came sin and death. One of the results of sin entering the world through Adam is that one of the sins that would be committed was the crime of murder. God initiates a law to execute vengeance on the murderer. This was completely unnecessary in the pre-fall world.

Jesus addresses vengeance in Matt. 5:
38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Jesus is basically saying, but I say unto you, No. An eye for an eye in Moses was a reasonable elaboration or continuation of Gen. 9. Jesus is not denying that Gen. 9 was initiated by God. He is bringing in the NT that no longer permits that formerly allowed law, which served as part of the overall schoolmaster role of the OT.

In this chaper 5 of Matt. there are 6 places where Jesus uses a phrase similar to the one above, "but I say unto you" with regard to something from the law that was seen as indisputable by many.
He contradicts former practices that the law justified and reveals the absolute moral "truth" of those topics.

Divorce is one of those topics. It wasn't before the fall and it is not now to be done in Christ.
Revenge is another topic addressed in Matt. 5.
It was not before the fall and it is not to be done now by the children of God.
In fact, all of the things Jesus opposes in Matt. 5 are things we can reasonably conclude would not have been done in the pre-fall world.

The OT law was necessary to deal with mankind in his fallen state. It was not all "truth" though it is true that God allowed those temporarily imposed laws to exist for order etc until Jesus came to bring the NT of revealed truth.

Gal. 3
16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

Paul refers to this temporary service of the OT law again in Heb. 9:

9 Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;
10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.

[The reforming that the NT was to bring was to work for the accomplishment of a good conscience before God.
Hence the conscience-touching truth of Jesus in Matt. 5 and the return to truth as before the fall with regard to things such as divorce and vengeance.]

The law served until Jesus came to bring the truth. God chose to put new wine into new bottles.
Unregenerated man was "shut up from the faith" that was afterward to be reavealed in Christ.
By the NT, Truth was coupled with the regenerating power of the Holy Ghost [which regeneration could only be made available by the death and resurrection of Christ] as new wine must be coupled with new wine skins in order to ensure success.

I suggest that the old wine is cherished because there is not the new wine skin available that can appreciate the new wine.


Once again - I have posted a separate topic for this issue.

Alaska
Jul 5th 2008, 08:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alaska http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1698435#post1698435)
There is a difference between law and truth.
This can be demonstrated by what the NT says:

For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

As in any society that has to have laws to establish order, accountability and combat crime in the fallen state of mankind after the fall, some of the laws will be there simply to deal with particular situations. They are not necessarily the truth, they just work to accomplish their goal.

In the garden before the fall there was no killing. There was also not the knowledge of right and wrong or good and evil. The choice given to Adam to choose life or death was not on the basis of choosing right and wrong; it was a simpler consequential thing: their choice to either eat or not to eat was what would determine life or death.

After the fall, laws came into being to deal with situations. Many of these laws were not "truth" after the NT definition of truth as seen in the quote above.

Genesis 9:
6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

By man, came sin and death. One of the results of sin entering the world through Adam is that one of the sins that would be committed was the crime of murder. God initiates a law to execute vengeance on the murderer. This was completely unnecessary in the pre-fall world.

Jesus addresses vengeance in Matt. 5:
38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Jesus is basically saying, but I say unto you, No. An eye for an eye in Moses was a reasonable elaboration or continuation of Gen. 9. Jesus is not denying that Gen. 9 was initiated by God. He is bringing in the NT that no longer permits that formerly allowed law, which served as part of the overall schoolmaster role of the OT.

In this chaper 5 of Matt. there are 6 places where Jesus uses a phrase similar to the one above, "but I say unto you" with regard to something from the law that was seen as indisputable by many.
He contradicts former practices that the law justified and reveals the absolute moral "truth" of those topics.

Divorce is one of those topics. It wasn't before the fall and it is not now to be done in Christ.
Revenge is another topic addressed in Matt. 5.
It was not before the fall and it is not to be done now by the children of God.
In fact, all of the things Jesus opposes in Matt. 5 are things we can reasonably conclude would not have been done in the pre-fall world.

The OT law was necessary to deal with mankind in his fallen state. It was not all "truth" though it is true that God allowed those temporarily imposed laws to exist for order etc until Jesus came to bring the NT of revealed truth.

Gal. 3
16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

Paul refers to this temporary service of the OT law again in Heb. 9:

9 Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;
10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.

[The reforming that the NT was to bring was to work for the accomplishment of a good conscience before God.
Hence the conscience-touching truth of Jesus in Matt. 5 and the return to truth as before the fall with regard to things such as divorce and vengeance.]

The law served until Jesus came to bring the truth. God chose to put new wine into new bottles.
Unregenerated man was "shut up from the faith" that was afterward to be reavealed in Christ.
By the NT, Truth was coupled with the regenerating power of the Holy Ghost [which regeneration could only be made available by the death and resurrection of Christ] as new wine must be coupled with new wine skins in order to ensure success.

I suggest that the old wine is cherished because there is not the new wine skin available that can appreciate the new wine.



Once again - I have posted a separate topic for this issue.

It is appropriate that I place this post here since it relates to the fallen state of man and hence earthly carnal nations and their flags that they pledge allegiance to, which is associated with war, contrary to the greater nation that Jesus established wherein is a calling to be back in fellowship again with God in some ways as before the fall. In this nation the citizens unashamedly hold up its banner and standard of truth, which banner and standard they are told by Jesus will be despised by the world.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 5th 2008, 08:17 PM
It is appropriate that I place this post here since it relates to the fallen state of man and hence earthly carnal nations and their flags that they pledge allegiance to, which is associated with war, contrary to the greater nation that Jesus established wherein is a calling to be back in fellowship again with God in some ways as before the fall.

Fair enough. You keep calling these nations 'carnal,' but how do you deal with Romans 13 and 2 Peter that specifically state these nations are used by God and that we are to submit to them?

Eaglenester
Jul 5th 2008, 08:40 PM
Fair enough. You keep calling these nations 'carnal,' but how do you deal with Romans 13 and 2 Peter that specifically state these nations are used by God and that we are to submit to them?

That the nations are carnal doesn't negate that they can be used by Yah.

Peter and Paul and even Yahshua submitted to the governing leaders unto their death - that does not release the governing leaders from responsibility for their evil acts.
That does not justify their evil acts

Yah can use a rapist or murderer to accomplish His will to bring someone to salvation - but the rapist and murderer are no less evil and judged for it.
That does not justify the evil acts

Alaska
Jul 5th 2008, 09:12 PM
The key to understanding the NT truth of Rom. 13 is to understand that our submission is not unconditional.
If leeway can be afforded to a soldier to not obey an immoral order from a superior officer, are we unwilling to grant the Christian to disobey the command to go to war, which command is immoral by the NT code of ethics?

Submit to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake.

Let us stop allowing those pushing for allowing war for the Christian from deleting "for the Lord's sake".
All that we do is to be done for his glory. Killing in wartime or anytime is not to His glory with respect to the greater covenant clearly laid out by Jesus.
The NT refers to those that glory in their shame. It is in my opinion shameful to not be approved enough in the handling of scriptures to not even understand that the Christian nation is a separate nation on the planet. Separate laws, separate morals.

When Mordechai refused to bow to Haman, which was a decree by the powers that were, he was fulfilling obeying every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake. That ordinance was not for the Lord's sake; it would not honour God, he was not going to do it. Like the many who would not assist in the extermination of the Jews, both in Haman's time as well as in Hitler's.

Esther 3:
8 And Haman said unto king Ahasuerus, There is a certain people scattered abroad and dispersed among the people in all the provinces of thy kingdom; and their laws are diverse from all people; neither keep they the king's laws: therefore it is not for the king's profit to suffer them.
9 If it please the king, let it be written that they may be destroyed: and I will pay ten thousand talents of silver to the hands of those that have the charge of the business, to bring it into the king's treasuries.

Instead of willing to face persecution for standing for truth, many have opted to adopt a doctrine to submit to whatever they say.
The people of God are known for non compliance.

Like Jesus said, those that fight are not his servants.

It appears, in light of the end of verse 8 above, that it is not for the forum's administrators' profit to allow posts defending Jesus' position on not killing the lowly status of being allowed in "Chat".

Maybe I will be honoured by a visit from the Dept of homeland security.
{Doesn't that remind you a little of "fatherland" security?}

apothanein kerdos
Jul 5th 2008, 09:44 PM
If leeway can be afforded to a soldier to not obey an immoral order from a superior officer, are we unwilling to grant the Christian to disobey the command to go to war, which command is immoral by the NT code of ethics?

Before you can even go on in your post, you have to prove that going to war and killing is against the BIBLICAL code of ethics (I refuse, from here on out, to split the NT and OT in terms of ethics - both are equal). If this cannot be proven, then avoiding a war does not provide a caveat.

theleast
Jul 5th 2008, 10:01 PM
Before you can even go on in your post, you have to prove that going to war and killing is against the BIBLICAL code of ethics (I refuse, from here on out, to split the NT and OT in terms of ethics - both are equal). If this cannot be proven, then avoiding a war does not provide a caveat.

That has been proven.

You choose to ignore it.

But for one last time...

Exodus 20:13 (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Exodus+20:13&version=9) (Whole Chapter) (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Exodus+20&version=9)
Thou shalt not kill.

Matthew 5:39 (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Matthew+5:39&version=9) (Whole Chapter) (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Matthew+5&version=9)
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Matthew 10:16 (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Matthew+10:16&version=9) (Whole Chapter) (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Matthew+10&version=9)
Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.

Or do we ignore these scriptures because it pleases us more to kill.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 5th 2008, 10:04 PM
That has been proven.

You choose to ignore it.

But for one last time...

Exodus 20:13 (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Exodus+20:13&version=9) (Whole Chapter) (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Exodus+20&version=9)
Thou shalt not kill.

Matthew 5:39 (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Matthew+5:39&version=9) (Whole Chapter) (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Matthew+5&version=9)
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Matthew 10:16 (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Matthew+10:16&version=9) (Whole Chapter) (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Matthew+10&version=9)
Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.

Or do we ignore these scriptures because it pleases us more to kill.

The Hebrew word for "kill" is better translated as "murder" or "killing someone with malicious contempt." This, of course, would not encompass all murders.

Furthermore, since you're now open to using the entirety of the Scriptures as a rule of thumb, how do you deal with Genesis 9 that says if a man murders, we are to kill him? This, of course, would contradict your interpretation of the Scriptures.

Alaska
Jul 5th 2008, 10:15 PM
Before you can even go on in your post, you have to prove that going to war and killing is against the BIBLICAL code of ethics (I refuse, from here on out, to split the NT and OT in terms of ethics - both are equal). If this cannot be proven, then avoiding a war does not provide a caveat.



Deut 6:13 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=5&CHAP=6&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=13) Thou shalt fear the LORD thy God, and serve him, and shalt swear by his name.

Deut 10:20 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=5&CHAP=10&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=20) Thou shalt fear the LORD thy God; him shalt thou serve, and to him shalt thou cleave, and swear by his name.

Matt. 5:
33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:

34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:

35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.

36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.

37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

James 5:
12 But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation.




It was unethical to not get circumcised under the inferior OT.
Now physical circumcision is "nothing".

The NT is regarded as better and greater than the OT.
It is said that the NT changed some of the laws of the OT by Paul.





Furthermore, since you're now open to using the entirety of the Scriptures as a rule of thumb, how do you deal with Genesis 9 that says if a man murders, we are to kill him? This, of course, would contradict your interpretation of the Scriptures.


After the fall, laws came into being to deal with situations. Many of these laws were not "truth" after the NT definition of truth as seen in the quote above.

Genesis 9:
6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

By man, came sin and death. One of the results of sin entering the world through Adam is that one of the sins that would be committed was the crime of murder. God initiates a law to execute vengeance on the murderer. This was completely unnecessary in the pre-fall world.

Jesus addresses vengeance in Matt. 5:
38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Jesus is basically saying, but I say unto you, No. An eye for an eye in Moses was a reasonable elaboration or continuation of Gen. 9. Jesus is not denying that Gen. 9 was initiated by God. He is bringing in the NT that no longer permits that formerly allowed law, which served as part of the overall schoolmaster role of the OT.

In this chaper 5 of Matt. there are 6 places where Jesus uses a phrase similar to the one above, "but I say unto you" with regard to something from the law that was seen as indisputable by many.
He contradicts former practices that the law justified and reveals the absolute moral "truth" of those topics.

Divorce is one of those topics. It wasn't before the fall and it is not now to be done in Christ.
Revenge is another topic addressed in Matt. 5.
It was not before the fall and it is not to be done now by the children of God.
In fact, all of the things Jesus opposes in Matt. 5 are things we can reasonably conclude would not have been done in the pre-fall world.

Eaglenester
Jul 5th 2008, 10:25 PM
The Hebrew word for "kill" is better translated as "murder" or "killing someone with malicious contempt." This, of course, would not encompass all murders.

Furthermore, since you're now open to using the entirety of the Scriptures as a rule of thumb, how do you deal with Genesis 9 that says if a man murders, we are to kill him? This, of course, would contradict your interpretation of the Scriptures.

If a man wrongly sends men out to war, is he not a murderer?

And you are misreading Genesis 9 - there is NO command that says to kill murderers.

Yahweh is making a statement, not a commandment.
Murder is not mentioned, nor is putting to death - just spilling blood, which is much more encompassing than killing.

If you try and make that a command, then we better put to death every soldier who has killed in battle because they have spilled blood - it doesn't specify murder like Torah does.

Don't add commandments where Elohim hasn't put them, it's not a good thing to do.

I read that verse in Genesis 9 as a statement of reaping and sowing.

ServantofTruth
Jul 5th 2008, 10:41 PM
Obviously i can't read 12 pages of this topic, but i read page 1 & page 12. :)

Put me down for obeying the laws of the country we live in, AS LONG as they don't contradict the bible/ our faith.

Jesus would never have joined the Jewish or Roman army. Nor would his 12 apostles/ 13. Nor would Paul. Or any of the early Christians.

We can't go on and on about killing and the army again can we? Well i can't! :saint:

The cross means everything. This world should mean LESS each day. I'm in the UK and which party rules bores me, because they are all the same, promote sins as policy - abortion, homosexuality, greed, gay marriage, single parent families.......

I would not fight for my country. I will not defend a government of satan. However i will obey the rulers and laws as instructed in the bible. Therefore i will be following the New Testament example of ALL christians. :)

Please don't mention the soldiers coming to John to be baptised. :B I believe the first Christians came later! They were not puting their faith in Jesus Christ. Servant of Truth.

Slug1
Jul 5th 2008, 11:26 PM
Please don't mention the soldiers coming to John to be baptised. :B I believe the first Christians came later! They were not puting their faith in Jesus Christ. Servant of Truth.Then what use was Isaiah's prophecy?

danield
Jul 5th 2008, 11:28 PM
Obviously i can't read 12 pages of this topic, but i read page 1 & page 12. :)

Put me down for obeying the laws of the country we live in, AS LONG as they don't contradict the bible/ our faith.

Jesus would never have joined the Jewish or Roman army. Nor would his 12 apostles/ 13. Nor would Paul. Or any of the early Christians.

We can't go on and on about killing and the army again can we? Well i can't! :saint:

The cross means everything. This world should mean LESS each day. I'm in the UK and which party rules bores me, because they are all the same, promote sins as policy - abortion, homosexuality, greed, gay marriage, single parent families.......

I would not fight for my country. I will not defend a government of satan. However i will obey the rulers and laws as instructed in the bible. Therefore i will be following the New Testament example of ALL christians. :)

Please don't mention the soldiers coming to John to be baptised. :B I believe the first Christians came later! They were not puting their faith in Jesus Christ. Servant of Truth.

I am completely in agreement with you serventoftruth. I do feel that Christ wanted us to love or neighbor as ourselves even to the point of doing good to those who persecute you. I feel we are to be slow to anger and eager to show kindness. I also feel the same way about how our government has fallen pray to promote sins as policy - abortion, homosexuality, greed, gay marriage, single parent families. You have echoed my thoughts exactly. I know we are to tolerate these injustices of the Lords laws, but it does not mean that we have to like it. And above all we are to never put anything above the Lord and his ways, even if it is our very flag. I hope you have a blessed weekend!

pinky
Jul 6th 2008, 12:25 AM
In getting back to the OP.

I have to be honest and say that several (but not all) of my American friends that are of the evangelical or Christian-zionist persuasion, DO put the flag before Christ.

There is a certain 'National Pride' that some of them have that is just plain...............well............pride.

It is a national pride that causes them to be blinded, or dishonest, about the true depravity of their own nation.

It causes them to boast themselves as a more 'righteous nation' than others......when nothing could be further from the truth.

It is a pride that stirs them to bloodlust against the people who their government and media tells them is the enemy.

It is a pride that causes them to fear the so called 'enemy nation'.




It is a pride that their leaders are adept at manipulating.




It is a pride that causes them to ignore ALL the teachings of Christ and the example HE SET, for how we are to treat our enemies.



It is a pride that stirs some to anger and wrath if anyone points these things out.


:2cents:

quiet dove
Jul 6th 2008, 12:48 AM
What about the many many people their government has sent them in to other countries to help. Take Zimbabwae (I know I spelled that terribly wrong)

Should we let these atrocities continue? or maybe the prideful self centered Americans should go help those who are starving because of Mugabe.

I don't know, that might mean some Americans die, better they stay at home in their self centered world playing with their ipods, wouldn't want to be forcing a better life on anyone.

Eaglenester
Jul 6th 2008, 01:05 AM
What about the many many people their government has sent them in to other countries to help. Take Zimbabwae (I know I spelled that terribly wrong)

Should we let these atrocities continue? or maybe the prideful self centered Americans should go help those who are starving because of Mugabe.

I don't know, that might mean some Americans die, better they stay at home in their self centered world playing with their ipods, wouldn't want to be forcing a better life on anyone.

Why do christians sit back and expect the government to act?
Churches should be sending over their own people instead of asking the Govt to intervene.

We are in such the mess we are in because the Americanized church has relinquished much of it's responsibility and duties (caring for the poor, the widows, the orphans) to a secular government who is inefficient and infective.

quiet dove
Jul 6th 2008, 01:14 AM
Why do christians sit back and expect the government to act?
Churches should be sending over their own people instead of asking the Govt to intervene.

We are in such the mess we are in because the Americanized church has relinquished much of it's responsibility and duties (caring for the poor, the widows, the orphans) to a secular government who is inefficient and infective.

As far as Christians dumping the problem on the government, there are a good many Christians working for the government and in the armed forces. Christians are doing their part by serving in the armed forces, so they are sending their own people over there, or where ever.

Eaglenester
Jul 6th 2008, 01:53 AM
As far as Christians dumping the problem on the government, there are a good many Christians working for the government and in the armed forces. Christians are doing their part by serving in the armed forces, so they are sending their own people over there, or where ever.

No, they are asking the GOVERNMENT to tackle the issues - BIG difference.

danield
Jul 6th 2008, 02:23 AM
What about the many many people their government has sent them in to other countries to help. Take Zimbabwae (I know I spelled that terribly wrong)

Should we let these atrocities continue? or maybe the prideful self centered Americans should go help those who are starving because of Mugabe.

I don't know, that might mean some Americans die, better they stay at home in their self centered world playing with their ipods, wouldn't want to be forcing a better life on anyone.

I just want to ask the question to many to help me understand something. Is it right to spend all of our resources going overseas helping the poor there when we have homeless people dying in our own cities due to extreme exposure to the elements? Should we not look in our own back yards at the poor and needy first or should we try to resolve international issues with the meager resources we have? The reason I mention this is because I witnessed someone die to the extreme cold last winter when my church sent a big mission to Africa to help the poor there. I never said anything, but it hurt me to know that they spent a lot of money on just plane tickets alone that could have saved that poor woman. It is somewhat off topic, but it does strike home to me after reading QDís post.

quiet dove
Jul 6th 2008, 02:34 AM
I just want to ask the question to many to help me understand something. Is it right to spend all of our resources going overseas helping the poor there when we have homeless people dying in our own cities due to extreme exposure to the elements? Should we not look in our own back yards at the poor and needy first or should we try to resolve international issues with the meager resources we have? The reason I mention this is because I witnessed someone die to the extreme cold last winter when my church sent a big mission to Africa to help the poor there. I never said anything, but it hurt me to know that they spent a lot of money on just plane tickets alone that could have saved that poor woman. It is somewhat off topic, but it does strike home to me after reading QD’s post.

You know what. I agree and that is a terrific question. I think our government waste money at every turn, be it "officially" or just the underhandedness of the individuals. Our government is such a mess, though it has been one of the better ones such as it has been, problems and all. In other words, don't know that I would want to live anywhere else but that does not mean I am so stupid as to not realize we have some major problems and they are getting worse

I agree, I think we need to get our act together, so much money is wasted in just political back scratching. If the waste was stopped we could continue our efforts to help other but help those here, which I agree 100% should be done.

I heard a comment about needing a plan to have people go from welfare to working. In my opinion that is only the surface problem, what about all the ones working and because of the lousy decisions that have been and will be made, how many will go from working to welfare!! How many people are loosing their jobs on a daily basis.

So I agree, while missionary work is so important, so is cleaning up your own back yard. People in the US are looked down upon because they need help but we go to other countries and want a pat on the back for helping the ones who need help.

If we do not start helping each other at home and get this country back on track with a solid economy, how in the world will we help anyone else. Just on a personal level, hypothetically, if you can't buy food for your own children, how in the world are you going to buy food for someone elses children. Common sense here, if we fall, we won't be helping anyone! To many Americans are living in lala land.

pinky
Jul 6th 2008, 02:35 AM
Should we let these atrocities continue? or maybe the prideful self centered Americans should go help those who are starving because of Mugabe.

Of course we should help those that are oppressed and starving......by feeding them and comforting them....... by building them in Christ and focusing on the heavely kingdom............ not with carnal weapons, or sabre rattling, or by violently overthrowing rulers and attacking whole nations leaving bloodshed, suffering and death in our wake.

As Christians our 'weapon' is the Gospel of PEACE.

THIS is the foundation for peace...........for defeating evil...........and we are to lead by EXAMPLE.


What model of moral righteousness does your nation lead by that you may righteously judge and police other nations?

Seriously, your leaders can't even 'righteously' lead your own nation.


Your nation is the greatest purveyor of legal abortion, drug addiction, pornography, child pornography, homosexuality, feminism, incarcerated citizens, consumer greed, gluttony, materlialism, violent and sexually explicit entertainment.......................to name just a few surface things.


So the 'moral high ground' argument kinda rings hollow.


Think about it!

If a drug and porn addicted, glamourous homosexual, pedophile who claims to be an example of Christianity started forcing his 'holy righteousness' on you, or someone else, through violence................wouldn't you consider him as insane...............or at the very least, a huge, ginormous hypocrite?

pinky
Jul 6th 2008, 02:47 AM
I think our government waste money at every turn, be it "officially" or just the underhandedness of the individuals.



Instead of using that money to help the poor of your own nation, your nation invests it in killing people of other nations.

danield
Jul 6th 2008, 02:48 AM
Please understand that I am not trying to discourage anyone from doing missions anywhere in the world. Anytime someone can help the poor it is wonderful a blessing from God, and I marvel at their accomplishments. The situation that came about this past winter really struck home and I have grieved her loss even though she is a stranger. And it has helped me understand that not only can I not save the world but it is very hard at times to help those who are just in our back yard living in need.

Eaglenester
Jul 6th 2008, 02:48 AM
Of course we should help those that are oppressed and starving......by feeding them and comforting them....... by building them in Christ and focusing on the heavely kingdom............ not with carnal weapons, or sabre rattling, or by violently overthrowing rulers and attacking whole nations leaving bloodshed, suffering and death in our wake.

As Christians our 'weapon' is the Gospel of PEACE.

THIS is the foundation for peace...........for defeating evil...........and we are to lead by EXAMPLE.


What model of moral righteousness does your nation lead by that you may righteously judge and police other nations?

Seriously, your leaders can't even 'righteously' lead your own nation.


Your nation is the greatest purveyor of legal abortion, drug addiction, pornography, child pornography, homosexuality, feminism, incarcerated citizens, consumer greed, gluttony, materlialism, violent and sexually explicit entertainment.......................to name just a few surface things.


So the 'moral high ground' argument kinda rings hollow.


Think about it!

If a drug and porn addicted, glamourous homosexual, pedophile who claims to be an example of Christianity started forcing his 'holy righteousness' on you, or someone else, through violence................wouldn't you consider him as insane...............or at the very least, a huge, ginormous hypocrite?

AMEN


Your nation is the greatest purveyor of legal abortion, drug addiction, pornography, child pornography, homosexuality, feminism, incarcerated citizens, consumer greed, gluttony, materlialism, violent and sexually explicit entertainment.......................to name just a few surface things.

Is this the fruit of a "christian" nation?

Can a good tree bear bad fruit, or a bad tree bear good fruit.

The root of the tree of American isn't Messiah - as evident by the many seasons of bad fruit - like 200 years of a horrendous civil rights record (that has been a continuous crop of rotten fruit)

pinky
Jul 6th 2008, 03:10 AM
Is this the fruit of a "christian" nation?

Can a good tree bear bad fruit, or a bad tree bear good fruit.



Precisely.

Is war 'good fruit'?

Cause that is becoming Americas biggest industry.

Eaglenester
Jul 6th 2008, 03:22 AM
Is war 'good fruit'?

Cause that is becoming Americas biggest industry.

Some (to to many) see it as good fruit.

Eaglenester
Jul 6th 2008, 03:25 AM
The flag of America is dyed & dripping with the blood of the many she has trampled on to build her empire.

redeemedbyhim
Jul 6th 2008, 03:28 AM
Of course we should help those that are oppressed and starving......by feeding them and comforting them....... by building them in Christ and focusing on the heavely kingdom............ not with carnal weapons, or sabre rattling, or by violently overthrowing rulers and attacking whole nations leaving bloodshed, suffering and death in our wake.

As Christians our 'weapon' is the Gospel of PEACE.

THIS is the foundation for peace...........for defeating evil...........and we are to lead by EXAMPLE.


What model of moral righteousness does your nation lead by that you may righteously judge and police other nations?

Seriously, your leaders can't even 'righteously' lead your own nation.


Your nation is the greatest purveyor of legal abortion, drug addiction, pornography, child pornography, homosexuality, feminism, incarcerated citizens, consumer greed, gluttony, materlialism, violent and sexually explicit entertainment.......................to name just a few surface things.


So the 'moral high ground' argument kinda rings hollow.


Think about it!

If a drug and porn addicted, glamourous homosexual, pedophile who claims to be an example of Christianity started forcing his 'holy righteousness' on you, or someone else, through violence................wouldn't you consider him as insane...............or at the very least, a huge, ginormous hypocrite?

Would you have us all be like Canada? Has your government found all the answers and are leading the world into righteousness?

I realize America has fallen a long way since years past. But, there are still people in this country that serve and love God with all their hearts. This country isn't perfect, but it's been home to me and my family and I wouldn't live anywhere else on earth.

I'm prepared to take it on the chin for the following:
It gets a little tiresome reading posts bashing my country, sorry if that's offensive to you, but that's how I feel.

I remember hearing something from another Candian that I appreciated, so I did a search and found these words:
The following excerpts, from a Canadian newspaper, is worth sharing..."America: The Good Neighbor". Widespread but only partial news coverage was given to a remarkable editorial broadcast from Toronto by *Gordon Sinclair, a Canadian television commentator. Although presented on his radio show in 1973, Mr. Sinclair's message most certainly touches the hearts and lives of many Americans and their allies today, after the senseless loss of innocent lives on Sept. 11, 2001...

This Canadian thinks it is time to speak up for the Americans as the most generous and possibly the least appreciated people on all the earth. Germany, Japan and, to a lesser extent, Britain and Italy were lifted out of the debris of war by the Americans who poured in billions of dollars and forgave other billions in debts. None of these countries is today paying even the interest on its remaining debts to the United States.
When the franc was in danger of collapsing in 1956, it was the Americans who propped it up, and their reward was to be insulted and swindled on the streets of Paris. I was there....I saw it!
When earthquakes hit distant cities, it is the United States that hurries in to help. This spring, 59 American communities were flattened by tornadoes. Nobody helped.
The Marshall Plan and the Truman Policy pumped billions of dollars into discouraged countries. Now newspapers in those countries are writing about the decadent, war-mongering Americans.
I'd like to see just one of those countries that is gloating over the erosion of the United States dollar build its own airplanes. Does any other country in the world have a plane to equal the Boeing Jumbo Jet, the Lockheed Tri-Star, or the Douglas DC10? If so, why don't they fly them? Why do all the International lines except Russia fly American Planes? Why does no other land on earth even consider putting a man or woman on the moon?
You talk about Japanese technocracy, and you get radios. You talk about German technocracy, and you get automobiles. You talk about American technocracy, and you find men on the moon - not once, but several times - and safely home again.
You talk about scandals, and the Americans put theirs right in the store window for everybody to look at. Even their draft-dodgers are not pursued and hounded. They are here on our streets, and most of them, unless they are breaking Canadian laws, are getting American dollars from ma and pa at home to spend here.
When the railways of France, Germany and India were breaking down through age, it was the Americans who rebuilt them. When the Pennsylvania Railroad and the New York Central went broke, nobody loaned them an old caboose. Both are still broke.
I can name you 5000 times when the Americans raced to the help of other people in trouble. Can you name me even one time when someone else raced to the Americans in trouble? I don't think there was outside help even during the San Francisco earthquake.
Our neighbors have faced it alone, and I'm one Canadian who is damned tired of hearing them get kicked around. They will come out of this thing with their flag high. And when they do, they are entitled to thumb their nose at the lands that are gloating over their present troubles. I hope Canada is not one of those....

_________________________________________

Maybe that's offensive to read and maybe it's a little sappy, but there is good in America too and I just thougt it would be nice to hear words from someone outside this country who felt the same.

redeemedbyhim
Jul 6th 2008, 03:30 AM
The flag of America is dyed & dripping with the blood of the many she has trampled on to build her empire.

America has done good in many ways, it would be Christian to remember that too.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 6th 2008, 03:32 AM
It was unethical to not get circumcised under the inferior OT.

I'm sorry Alaska, but I simply cannot reason with heretics. To call the entire OT inferior is a heresy of the highest order (it denies and demeans Scripture). The Old Covenant is inferior, but not the Old Testament (to now be referred to as the "Earlier Scriptures"). The Earlier Scriptures are just as inspired as the Later Scriptures - to assert otherwise is to dive into a Gnostic heresy. I know that you'll take this as a personal attack and I greatly apologize as how offensive this might seem, but as a brother in Christ I owe it to you to let you know when what you are saying is outright Gnostic garbage.

How is it Gnostic garbage? The Gnostics taught that the entirety of the Earlier Scriptures was written about a fallen Aeon of the Later Scriptures (New Testament) God. Marcion even said that the Earlier Scriptures were "inferior" to the Later Scriptures - something all orthodox Christians at the time, including people who were disciples of the Disciples, condemned as heresy.

It is the OLD COVENANT, not the Earlier Scriptures, that is inferior.


If a man wrongly sends men out to war, is he not a murderer?

That certainly is $1 million question. To be fair and honest, I don't have an adequate answer.


And you are misreading Genesis 9 - there is NO command that says to kill murderers.

Yahweh is making a statement, not a commandment.
Murder is not mentioned, nor is putting to death - just spilling blood, which is much more encompassing than killing.

Mate, come on. For one second please be fair in your assessment and look at what the Scripture says.

It is clearly stating that if someone murders, that person is to be killed because he has broken the image of God. Now, you assert that if this is true, anyone who has ever fought in a war should die. This, however, ignores David and countless other Earlier Scripture Saints that killed and were blessed by God.

From Matthew Henry's commentary (a fairly common commentary):

"Wilful murderers must be put to death. This is the sin which is here designed to be restrained by the terror of punishment (1.) God will punish murderers: At the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man, that is, "I will avenge the blood of the murdered upon the murderer." 2 Chronicles 24:22. When God requires the life of a man at the hand of him that took it away unjustly, the murderer cannot render that, and therefore must render his own in lieu of it, which is the only way left of making restitution."

Can you find a commentary that maybe backs up your position?


I have to be honest and say that several (but not all) of my American friends that are of the evangelical or Christian-zionist persuasion, DO put the flag before Christ.

There is a certain 'National Pride' that some of them have that is just plain...............well............pride.

It is a national pride that causes them to be blinded, or dishonest, about the true depravity of their own nation.

It causes them to boast themselves as a more 'righteous nation' than others......when nothing could be further from the truth.

It is a pride that stirs them to bloodlust against the people who their government and media tells them is the enemy.

It is a pride that causes them to fear the so called 'enemy nation'.

(attempting to get back on topic)

I think it is possible to be proud of one's nation, but at the same time recognize its flaws. I don't know, I am proud of the ideal of America and certainly proud of what she has done in the past, but at the same time I'm ashamed of what she's done in the past and even more ashamed of what she's become.

I do not think, however, that she is righteous by any stretch of the imagination. This does not mean, however, that I can't take some pride in my country.

Eaglenester
Jul 6th 2008, 03:43 AM
Would you have us all be like Canada? Has your government found all the answers and are leading the world into righteousness?

I realize America has fallen a long way since years past. But, there are still people in this country that serve and love God with all their hearts. This country isn't perfect, but it's been home to me and my family and I wouldn't live anywhere else on earth.

I'm prepared to take it on the chin for the following:
It gets a little tiresome reading posts bashing my country, sorry if that's offensive to you, but that's how I feel.

I remember hearing something from another Candian that I appreciated, so I did a search and found these words:
The following excerpts, from a Canadian newspaper, is worth sharing..."America: The Good Neighbor". Widespread but only partial news coverage was given to a remarkable editorial broadcast from Toronto by *Gordon Sinclair, a Canadian television commentator. Although presented on his radio show in 1973, Mr. Sinclair's message most certainly touches the hearts and lives of many Americans and their allies today, after the senseless loss of innocent lives on Sept. 11, 2001...

This Canadian thinks it is time to speak up for the Americans as the most generous and possibly the least appreciated people on all the earth. Germany, Japan and, to a lesser extent, Britain and Italy were lifted out of the debris of war by the Americans who poured in billions of dollars and forgave other billions in debts. None of these countries is today paying even the interest on its remaining debts to the United States.
When the franc was in danger of collapsing in 1956, it was the Americans who propped it up, and their reward was to be insulted and swindled on the streets of Paris. I was there....I saw it!
When earthquakes hit distant cities, it is the United States that hurries in to help. This spring, 59 American communities were flattened by tornadoes. Nobody helped.
The Marshall Plan and the Truman Policy pumped billions of dollars into discouraged countries. Now newspapers in those countries are writing about the decadent, war-mongering Americans.
I'd like to see just one of those countries that is gloating over the erosion of the United States dollar build its own airplanes. Does any other country in the world have a plane to equal the Boeing Jumbo Jet, the Lockheed Tri-Star, or the Douglas DC10? If so, why don't they fly them? Why do all the International lines except Russia fly American Planes? Why does no other land on earth even consider putting a man or woman on the moon?
You talk about Japanese technocracy, and you get radios. You talk about German technocracy, and you get automobiles. You talk about American technocracy, and you find men on the moon - not once, but several times - and safely home again.
You talk about scandals, and the Americans put theirs right in the store window for everybody to look at. Even their draft-dodgers are not pursued and hounded. They are here on our streets, and most of them, unless they are breaking Canadian laws, are getting American dollars from ma and pa at home to spend here.
When the railways of France, Germany and India were breaking down through age, it was the Americans who rebuilt them. When the Pennsylvania Railroad and the New York Central went broke, nobody loaned them an old caboose. Both are still broke.
I can name you 5000 times when the Americans raced to the help of other people in trouble. Can you name me even one time when someone else raced to the Americans in trouble? I don't think there was outside help even during the San Francisco earthquake.
Our neighbors have faced it alone, and I'm one Canadian who is damned tired of hearing them get kicked around. They will come out of this thing with their flag high. And when they do, they are entitled to thumb their nose at the lands that are gloating over their present troubles. I hope Canada is not one of those....

_________________________________________

Maybe that's offensive to read and maybe it's a little sappy, but there is good in America too and I just thougt it would be nice to hear words from someone outside this country who felt the same.

I'm not offended, but you are historically mistaken to think that American has fallen along way from years past.

How did America treat blacks in the 50s, how about the Natives of this land - denying them fair education and housing and jobs.

It's only been in near recent history that they have started to gain equal status.

It was "christians" that did want them living in their neighborhoods, eating at their restarauns, drinking from their water fountains

Do you remember that fruit of this "christian" nation?

When America helps other nations - it's usually with her oen best interests at heart or with strings attached.

We support & build up evil men (Saddam, Osama, Noriega) then kill countless innoents to take them down.

After WWII we gave the USSR much of Eastern Europe after fighting to free them, then spend how many trillions in the cold war to undo what we did?

Does this being said offend you?
Well it's called reality - and it ain't pretty.

The flag of American is sown in unrighteousness.

Slug1
Jul 6th 2008, 03:46 AM
When I was in Iraq doing what God put me on the path to do, I spoke with soldiers about God. We held service behind my Bradley and talked about God and if troops had questions about the Bible, we pulled our Bibles out and helped answer questions.

I was invited in Iraqi homes and since my interpreter was Christian, talking about Jesus to Iraqi's was easy as I didn't fear he was twisting what I said to answer their questions.

Sorry this doesn't qualify as fruit in your opinion but God made me do it for a reason.

What fruit is being produce by your complaints?

apothanein kerdos
Jul 6th 2008, 03:49 AM
I'm not offended, but you are historically mistaken to think that American has fallen along way from years past.

How did America treat blacks in the 50s, how about the Natives of this land - denying them fair education and housing and jobs.

It's only been in near recent history that they have started to gain equal status.

It was "christians" that did want them living in their neighborhoods, eating at their restarauns, drinking from their water fountains

Do you remember that fruit of this "christian" nation?

When America helps other nations - it's usually with her oen best interests at heart or with strings attached.

We support & build up evil men (Saddam, Osama, Noriega) then kill countless innoents to take them down.

After WWII we gave the USSR much of Eastern Europe after fighting to free them, then spend how many trillions in the cold war to undo what we did?

Does this being said offend you?
Well it's called reality - and it ain't pretty.

The flag of American is sown in unrighteousness.

As I have always argued, there needs to be a balanced view. A flaming liberal foaming at the mouth at the ills of America is just as bad as an ardent conservative that thinks God established His throne in Washington D.C.

America was wrong for how it treated minorities - yet due to the rule of law it allowed such people to rise up and challenge the system. The American ethic of work and justice is what allowed these minorities to fight for their equal rights. Had they done that in the Soviet Union, they would have been mass murdered.

America is wrong for its genocide against the unborn - but we have also led the world in medical advances that has saved countless lives.

America is wrong for giving Eastern Europe over to the Soviet Union - but we had just finished a bloody war freeing all of Europe from a tyrannical dictator that systematically killed millions of people.

America is not righteous, but we should be fair and acknowledge when she has done the right thing. She's wrong more often than not, but who isn't? Are you prepared to say that your past as a human being is any better than the collective past of America? I'm not prepared to say that. I'm not even prepared to say my past is any better than the collective past of Nazi Germany. I am just as unrighteous as all those nations - though I can judge their wrong deeds - I can't become haughty in my approach.

Eaglenester
Jul 6th 2008, 03:52 AM
America has done good in many ways, it would be Christian to remember that too.

But it is minor in comparison to her sins.

There are people within this country that have done much good - but the nation as a whole wasn't responsible.

There are beacons of light in this dark nation for sure - but there are beacons of light in many other dark nations, like in China, North Korea ect.

Vhayes
Jul 6th 2008, 03:52 AM
The flags of ALL countries are tarnished and tainted with unrighteousness.

Why the hatred for America only?

Is hating America acceptable in Christian circles? How about hating Holland or Sweden or Israel?

apothanein kerdos
Jul 6th 2008, 03:57 AM
The flags of ALL countries are tarnished and tainted with unrighteousness.

Why the hatred for America only?

Is hating America acceptable in Christian circles? How about hating Holland or Sweden or Israel?

America just has the biggest target on her chest now. We forget it was the first nation to offer actual religious freedom. We forget it was the first nation to implement Lex Rex (a higher law than the government, a law the government must submit to).

From what I've seen (and this is a generalization), people that have this view of America as God's vacation resort share something in common that hate America and believe she's committed little to no good - both are ignorant of American history and have, at most, a high school education in the subject.

Again, that is not always the case, but more often than not it's what I discover.

redeemedbyhim
Jul 6th 2008, 03:58 AM
I'm not offended, but you are historically mistaken to think that American has fallen along way from years past.

How did America treat blacks in the 50s, how about the Natives of this land - denying them fair education and housing and jobs.

It's only been in near recent history that they have started to gain equal status.

It was "christians" that did want them living in their neighborhoods, eating at their restarauns, drinking from their water fountains

Do you remember that fruit of this "christian" nation?

When America helps other nations - it's usually with her oen best interests at heart or with strings attached.

We support & build up evil men (Saddam, Osama, Noriega) then kill countless innoents to take them down.

After WWII we gave the USSR much of Eastern Europe after fighting to free them, then spend how many trillions in the cold war to undo what we did?

Does this being said offend you?
Well it's called reality - and it ain't pretty.

The flag of American is sown in unrighteousness.

One of the beauties of America is that you're free to bash this country and I'm free to counter, perhaps in that, balance can be presented.

I know that there will be a counter of anything positive with something negative. But, I would like to mention that Christians were the ones who began the under ground railroad to free slaves. Not all Americans were and are bad and not all who call on the name of the Lord are all bad either.

Balance, brother.

Eaglenester
Jul 6th 2008, 04:02 AM
As I have always argued, there needs to be a balanced view. A flaming liberal foaming at the mouth at the ills of America is just as bad as an ardent conservative that thinks God established His throne in Washington D.C.

America was wrong for how it treated minorities - yet due to the rule of law it allowed such people to rise up and challenge the system. The American ethic of work and justice is what allowed these minorities to fight for their equal rights. Had they done that in the Soviet Union, they would have been mass murdered.

America is wrong for its genocide against the unborn - but we have also led the world in medical advances that has saved countless lives.

America is wrong for giving Eastern Europe over to the Soviet Union - but we had just finished a bloody war freeing all of Europe from a tyrannical dictator that systematically killed millions of people.

America is not righteous, but we should be fair and acknowledge when she has done the right thing. She's wrong more often than not, but who isn't? Are you prepared to say that your past as a human being is any better than the collective past of America? I'm not prepared to say that. I'm not even prepared to say my past is any better than the collective past of Nazi Germany. I am just as unrighteous as all those nations - though I can judge their wrong deeds - I can't become haughty in my approach.

For the record I'm not liberal - up until part way thru Pesident Bush's first term, I considered myself a conservative.

"Balance" is a dangerous doctrine, many think they get to heaven because their "good" deeds balance or out weigh their good.
Consider me balance to those flag-waving pro-patriotic pastors and chritian leaders that falsely proclaim America as a christian nation.

There is good in America - it is great that I have the freedom to say this about a country I once loved and served, in some countries I'd be jailed or killed.

But it is kind of unnerving to see how christians are more bothered and offended by those who speak against this secular nation of the worldly kingdom than non-believers

apothanein kerdos
Jul 6th 2008, 04:11 AM
For the record I'm not liberal - up until part way thru Pesident Bush's first term, I considered myself a conservative.

"Balance" is a dangerous doctrine, many think they get to heaven because their "good" deeds balance or out weigh their good.
Consider me balance to those flag-waving pro-patriotic pastors and chritian leaders that falsely proclaim America as a christian nation.

There is good in America - it is great that I have the freedom to say this about a country I once loved and served, in some countries I'd be jailed or killed.

But it is kind of unnerving to see how christians are more bothered and offended by those who speak against this secular nation of the worldly kingdom than non-believers

That's a horrible correlation and it doesn't really apply. Balance, in attempt to review something, is the best approach. Salvation isn't an issue here, so there's no reason to bring it up.

You aren't balanced though - you're saying that America's "bad deeds" somehow outweigh her good deeds. Though there is a bit of vagueness for how one is supposed to judge that, it's hardly a balanced view and a misunderstanding of the positive significance that America has brought to the world.

It's brought a lot of problems, but it's also brought a whole lot of good. I don't see the need to be so "radical" because, as I stated, being "radical" on either side just comes across as ignorant or, at best, unlearned on proper American history.

And by the way, I would argue that one hold this view when evaluating any nation (the balanced approach), including Iran (since I'm assuming you'd ask). This doesn't always conclude that a nation is good or that its good deeds outweigh its bad, but it does allow us to look at the history of the nation and see what it has contributed so we can make a fair judgment from there.

redeemedbyhim
Jul 6th 2008, 04:12 AM
The flags of ALL countries are tarnished and tainted with unrighteousness.

Why the hatred for America only?

Good question. I suppose it will be answered, in length.


Is hating America acceptable in Christian circles? How about hating Holland or Sweden or Israel?

I'm sure the Lord would not have us hate any nation.

It does get tiresome to hear this nation bashed. It's not perfect, but no country is.

Whenever I hear about the unrighteousness, evil of this nation, this is the scripture that comes to mind:

2 Chronicles 7:17
If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

So, if we're pointing fingers at America, there are three fingers pointing back, right at us, His people.

Eaglenester
Jul 6th 2008, 04:14 AM
The flags of ALL countries are tarnished and tainted with unrighteousness.

Why the hatred for America only?

Is hating America acceptable in Christian circles? How about hating Holland or Sweden or Israel?

I don't hate America any more than any other nation - I hate what she has done, I hate the lies I had been brainwashed with.

I have lived in other nations (Philippines for 2 years, Scottland for a year, Germany for 2 {was there when the wall came down and saw the change}) and visited many in my jobs (Israel, Haiti, Ivory Coast, Russia, Czech republic, France, The Netherlands) and I've been a history buff - so I'm not uninformed or uneducated.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 6th 2008, 04:15 AM
Eaglenester, if I made a suggestion for two books for you to read, would you? They actually aren't pro-American by any stretch of the imagination, but they do help to bring a bit more of the "balance" I am talking about.

Eaglenester
Jul 6th 2008, 04:17 AM
So, if we're pointing fingers at America, there are three fingers pointing back, right at us, His people.


That's why I use we (which includes myself) and not they

apothanein kerdos
Jul 6th 2008, 04:20 AM
I don't hate America any more than any other nation - I hate what she has done, I hate the lies I had been brainwashed with.

I have lived in other nations (Philippines for 2 years, Scottland for a year, Germany for 2 {was there when the wall came down and saw the change}) and visited many in my jobs (Israel, Haiti, Ivory Coast, Russia, Czech republic, France, The Netherlands) and I've been a history buff - so I'm not uninformed or uneducated.

And I never said you were. I'm saying that your view and the way you express it makes you appear that way.

I mean, I'm not fan of America (I'm hoping that before the end of my life I can get my citizenship switched to another nation, if God calls on me to do that), but at the same time I do love this nation and have good reason to. Yes I see the evils - but I also see a lot of the good.

It's hard for me to speak too much ill-will against a nation that allowed a poor Jewish immigrant to come over from Russia - after having his house torn down and kicked out with nothing but the clothes on his back - in 1912 and establish his family here. It's hard for me to be too bitter over the horrible things this nation has done when it allowed this Jewish immigrant to do what he saw fit and has led to his great-grandson being able to work toward a PhD (God willing). It has allowed his descendants to make something of themselves when no other nation in the world would have let them. I come from a Jewish background. Imagine what would have happened had he stayed in Europe - I most likely would not exist. Yet, because of the freedom offered by America, here I am.

So keep in mind that when you criticize this nation for actual evils she has committed, she has also saved countless lives and futures.

quiet dove
Jul 6th 2008, 04:29 AM
Instead of using that money to help the poor of your own nation, your nation invests it in killing people of other nations.

Yea, we never bring food, medical supplies, education, allowing the people to vote, help the people of the country have a better life, you know food-clothes, stuff like that. Help the helpless escape the grip of a tyrant government. Rebuild communities or should I say establish and make communities better than before.

We helped Japan rebuild after a counter attack during war, a war in which they struck first, dumb us. Maybe we should be like a wealthy country who lives their life without much concern for the injustices going on all over the world. Hmmm, turn a blind eye. Just making sure we take care of ourselves. I guess we are stupid, caring about others and all. And to think we were thinking it was the Christian thing to do, help others. Hmm.

dumb us, could of had a v8

redeemedbyhim
Jul 6th 2008, 04:29 AM
And I never said you were. I'm saying that your view and the way you express it makes you appear that way.

I mean, I'm not fan of America (I'm hoping that before the end of my life I can get my citizenship switched to another nation, if God calls on me to do that), but at the same time I do love this nation and have good reason to. Yes I see the evils - but I also see a lot of the good.

It's hard for me to speak too much ill-will against a nation that allowed a poor Jewish immigrant to come over from Russia - after having his house torn down and kicked out with nothing but the clothes on his back - in 1912 and establish his family here. It's hard for me to be too bitter over the horrible things this nation has done when it allowed this Jewish immigrant to do what he saw fit and has led to his great-grandson being able to work toward a PhD (God willing). It has allowed his descendants to make something of themselves when no other nation in the world would have let them. I come from a Jewish background. Imagine what would have happened had he stayed in Europe - I most likely would not exist. Yet, because of the freedom offered by America, here I am.

So keep in mind that when you criticize this nation for actual evils she has committed, she has also saved countless lives and futures.

We have similar backgrounds. My grandfather immigrated from Russia, my father was first generation American, fought bravely in WWII, I might add.
Because this country welcomed my grandfather, many of our family members have gone on to accomplish many great things, doctors, lawyers, teachers, chemists, all contributing to this country in many fine ways.
My grandfather and grandmother were orthodox Jews, and if they had not left, none of my family would be here. Those of their family members that stayed were never heard from again.

I know it's not a perfect country, but for many of the reasons you cite, I am a fan of America and I'm not ashamed to say so.

:hug:

Eaglenester
Jul 6th 2008, 04:34 AM
Eaglenester, if I made a suggestion for two books for you to read, would you? They actually aren't pro-American by any stretch of the imagination, but they do help to bring a bit more of the "balance" I am talking about.

I understand the balance you are talking about, I realize the good (from a secular point) this nation has done in her short history.

But my point is about how much of evangelical christianity try to flower the past and paint a false picture of her past and roots.

How it is made to be seen that being patriotic to America goes hand-in-hand with being a "good" christian.

It is disheartening to see America be involved with taking the land that Yahweh gave to Israel, and giving over to the enemies of Yahweh - judgment will be reaped for it.

I don't want to see judgment to fall on this nation - I want the called of Elohim to open their eyes and see how they have just been mislead, strung along and used by politicians (in and out of the pulpit)

I see to many who name the name of Messiah put to much faith and trust in the government, and try to use the government and laws as a tool to try to, by the flesh, bring in Yahweh's kingdom.

I see to many christian leaders more focused in political means and activism than in making disciples and equipping the saints for their work in ministry.

To to many are fighting the wrong battle (moralism) using the wrong tools (laws, courts & government)

apothanein kerdos
Jul 6th 2008, 04:37 AM
I understand the balance you are talking about, I realize the good (from a secular point) this nation has done in her short history.

But my point is about how much of evangelical christianity try to flower the past and paint a false picture of her past and roots.

How it is made to be seen that being patriotic to America goes hand-in-hand with being a "good" christian.

It is disheartening to see America be involved with taking the land that Yahweh gave to Israel, and giving over to the enemies of Yahweh - judgment will be reaped for it.

I don't want to see judgment to fall on this nation - I want the called of Elohim to open their eyes and see how they have just been mislead, strung along and used by politicians (in and out of the pulpit)

I see to many who name the name of Messiah put to much faith and trust in the government, and try to use the government and laws as a tool to try to, by the flesh, bring in Yahweh's kingdom.

I see to many christian leaders more focused in political means and activism than in making disciples and equipping the saints for their work in ministry.

To to many are fighting the wrong battle (moralism) using the wrong tools (laws, courts & government)

I don't disagree with anything you're saying in that post. All I'm arguing is that there does need to be a balance. Yes, according to God we have done no good - but no nation (or person) has. Yet, we have no problem acknowledging when someone has done something good. Why should it be any different for nations?

Overreacting to the modern patriotic evangelical movement is just as wrong as the movement itself. It's like responding to legalistic Christians by saying the Bible isn't true - an overreaction to the wrong thing is still just as wrong as what it is reacting to.

pinky
Jul 6th 2008, 04:38 AM
Would you have us all be like Canada? Has your government found all the answers and are leading the world into righteousness?



Nope. Canada is no better than any other nation.

Criticism of canada won't bother me a bit.

My heart is set on an Eternal Kingdom.

Slug1
Jul 6th 2008, 04:39 AM
Yet, we have no problem acknowledging when someone has done something good. Why should it be any different for nations?Cause a nation can't voice anything in rebuttal so it's too easy to continuously sound off against it :rolleyes: :P

Eaglenester
Jul 6th 2008, 04:59 AM
And I never said you were. I'm saying that your view and the way you express it makes you appear that way.

I mean, I'm not fan of America (I'm hoping that before the end of my life I can get my citizenship switched to another nation, if God calls on me to do that), but at the same time I do love this nation and have good reason to. Yes I see the evils - but I also see a lot of the good.

It's hard for me to speak too much ill-will against a nation that allowed a poor Jewish immigrant to come over from Russia - after having his house torn down and kicked out with nothing but the clothes on his back - in 1912 and establish his family here. It's hard for me to be too bitter over the horrible things this nation has done when it allowed this Jewish immigrant to do what he saw fit and has led to his great-grandson being able to work toward a PhD (God willing). It has allowed his descendants to make something of themselves when no other nation in the world would have let them. I come from a Jewish background. Imagine what would have happened had he stayed in Europe - I most likely would not exist. Yet, because of the freedom offered by America, here I am.

So keep in mind that when you criticize this nation for actual evils she has committed, she has also saved countless lives and futures.

My grandparents immigrated from Germany as children - my father is a 1st generation American, who served 15 years in the in Army intelligence(ha ha), and shortly after my birth in 1960, he went to Vietnam.
He dropped out after 15 years because for the 2 years we spent in California in the mid 60s involved spying on American citizens (he would never talk about it) - he then went on to recruiter duty in Newark NJ for 2 years (during the race riots) and his next tour was embassy duty in Japan (with Army intelligence but got out instead and took a job working in a furniture factory.

I did 8 years in the Navy in submarine duty - my dad got mad because my job (the fire control and targeting system for the Nukes) entailed a high level top secret clearance.

The good I see is in individuals, not the nation.

WWII and Japan attacking us is not so black and white - but even if it was does it justify the purposeful targeting of women and children twice with nukes?

Eaglenester
Jul 6th 2008, 05:05 AM
I don't disagree with anything you're saying in that post. All I'm arguing is that there does need to be a balance. Yes, according to God we have done no good - but no nation (or person) has. Yet, we have no problem acknowledging when someone has done something good. Why should it be any different for nations?

Overreacting to the modern patriotic evangelical movement is just as wrong as the movement itself. It's like responding to legalistic Christians by saying the Bible isn't true - an overreaction to the wrong thing is still just as wrong as what it is reacting to.

Well maybe view it as I'm balancing out my past pro-patriotic stance.

But their is a difference between my overreaction and the pro-patriotic evangelical movement - mine isn't based on lies.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 6th 2008, 05:09 AM
Well maybe view it as I'm balancing out my past pro-patriotic stance.

But their is a difference between my overreaction and the pro-patriotic evangelical movement - mine isn't based on lies.

It is an overreaction nonetheless and still just as wrong.

We tend to overreact to what we came out of. For me, (in a seemingly contradiction) it is postmodern/liberal Christianity and, if I travel back further into my upbringing from the ages of 12-18, fundamentalist Christianity (I'm a man of extremes). I tend to overreact to it, but I need to realize that though I see dangers in it, my overreaction is not justified.

Likewise, for you it might be that because of what you've been through, you have a hard time seeing the more positive aspects of America itself (such as its laws). America as of late, specifically post-WWII hasn't been what it was pre-WWII, but that doesn't necessarily justify an overreaction against it.

Eaglenester
Jul 6th 2008, 05:46 AM
It is an overreaction nonetheless and still just as wrong.

We tend to overreact to what we came out of. For me, (in a seemingly contradiction) it is postmodern/liberal Christianity and, if I travel back further into my upbringing from the ages of 12-18, fundamentalist Christianity (I'm a man of extremes). I tend to overreact to it, but I need to realize that though I see dangers in it, my overreaction is not justified.

Likewise, for you it might be that because of what you've been through, you have a hard time seeing the more positive aspects of America itself (such as its laws). America as of late, specifically post-WWII hasn't been what it was pre-WWII, but that doesn't necessarily justify an overreaction against it.

Yes I do see your point, but it is disheartening when you find out much of what you've been taught and told (from the classroom and pulpits) is a lie and deception.

Scriptural balance is displayed in Yahshua's words to the 7 churches in Revelation:
This you have done right.....
but this I have against you......
this is what you need to start doing to correct.....
this is what happens if you don't......
this is the blessing if you do........

Thank you for your patience in dealing with me, by why not the need to point this out to the pro-patriotic posters?

apothanein kerdos
Jul 6th 2008, 06:04 AM
Yes I do see your point, but it is disheartening when you find out much of what you've been taught and told (from the classroom and pulpits) is a lie and deception.

Scriptural balance is displayed in Yahshua's words to the 7 churches in Revelation:
This you have done right.....
but this I have against you......
this is what you need to start doing to correct.....
this is what happens if you don't......
this is the blessing if you do........

Thank you for your patience in dealing with me, by why not the need to point this out to the pro-patriotic posters?

There are plenty of pro-Patriotic and overly-Patriotic posters - but their posts were so few and far between it was hard to catch. If you look carefully elsewhere on this board (in the "Anything Goes" section), you'll see that I'm giving a similar 'lecture' on the importance of realizing that we are not, nor have we ever been, a Christian nation.


It is unfortunate that much of American history - both for and against it - is composed of lies. At the same time, we need to realize we live in a fallen world and this is to be expected. Furthermore, because this world is fallen we need to latch onto any hint of goodness that any nation gives, for it gives us hope that such a nation can possibly change.

Just some things to think about.

Alaska
Jul 6th 2008, 07:06 AM
It was unethical to not get circumcised under the inferior OT.




I'm sorry Alaska, but I simply cannot reason with heretics. To call the entire OT inferior is a heresy of the highest order (it denies and demeans Scripture). The Old Covenant is inferior, but not the Old Testament (to now be referred to as the "Earlier Scriptures"). The Earlier Scriptures are just as inspired as the Later Scriptures - to assert otherwise is to dive into a Gnostic heresy. I know that you'll take this as a personal attack and I greatly apologize as how offensive this might seem, but as a brother in Christ I owe it to you to let you know when what you are saying is outright Gnostic garbage.


It was Paul the apostle that said the New Covenant was better and greater than the old covenant/testament. That is what I was referring to and nothing else. You already know that I don't make the distinction between "covenant" and "testament" as a dividing of the OT into parts as you do, yet you tend to judge me as though I do split up the OT like you do. And you already know that I regard all of the record of the entire OT/covenant to be the preserved written word of God not to be degraded. Reiterating the new testament understanding and claim that the NT is greater and better than the OT is not a degrading of the word.

OK, I think I got it, I need to clarify:
What the NT brought to offer and benefit man on a personal basis far exceeds what the OT as a whole brought to offer and benefit man. Yes, the Old and New work together and we couldn't have the NT without the OT but the fact remains that the NT is better and greater in this regard. The NT brought the power of regeneration of the Holy Ghost, the new man, and atonement that could not be gotten under the OT. The OT is the ministration of condemnation and death while the NT is the ministration of the Spirit and of righteousness and life.

With regard to the above paragraph:
Do you know that the OT was weak and that God knew all along that it was to be done away with? That the Old served until replaced by the New? Do you know that as glorious as the OT was, it had no glory when compared to the glory that the NT was to bring? That the NT glory was to so far outshine the glory of the OT that we could go to the extent to say that the OT had "no glory" in that regard? Again, that is with regard to what was offered to man on an individual basis.
The historical record and narrative of the OT/covenant is all factual.

If you still think that my calling the NT better and greater and hence the OT inferior, is heresy or gnostic or whatever else you feel like saying, after the above attempt at clarification, I really don't mind because my brother Paul the Apostle will be sitting in the heresy box with me. And if you want to put dunce caps on our heads too, well, the only thing we should do about that is rejoice.

dan
Jul 6th 2008, 10:12 AM
So then in the civil war if God was on the side of America, who's side was he on in that conflict?

...The side that won.:idea:

Revinius
Jul 6th 2008, 11:47 AM
God doesnt take sides as is clearly seen in Joshua when the Lord faces Him:
Joshua 5:13-14 "Now when Joshua was near Jericho, he looked up and saw a man standing in front of him with a drawn sword in his hand. Joshua went up to him and asked, "Are you for us or for our enemies?", "Neither," he replied, "but as commander of the army of the LORD I have now come." Then Joshua fell facedown to the ground in reverence"

quiet dove
Jul 6th 2008, 04:25 PM
Yes I do see your point, but it is disheartening when you find out much of what you've been taught and told (from the classroom and pulpits) is a lie and deception.

Scriptural balance is displayed in Yahshua's words to the 7 churches in Revelation:
This you have done right.....
but this I have against you......
this is what you need to start doing to correct.....
this is what happens if you don't......
this is the blessing if you do........

Thank you for your patience in dealing with me, by why not the need to point this out to the pro-patriotic posters?


There are plenty of pro-Patriotic and overly-Patriotic posters - but their posts were so few and far between it was hard to catch. If you look carefully elsewhere on this board (in the "Anything Goes" section), you'll see that I'm giving a similar 'lecture' on the importance of realizing that we are not, nor have we ever been, a Christian nation.


It is unfortunate that much of American history - both for and against it - is composed of lies. At the same time, we need to realize we live in a fallen world and this is to be expected. Furthermore, because this world is fallen we need to latch onto any hint of goodness that any nation gives, for it gives us hope that such a nation can possibly change.

Just some things to think about.

The thing about this is I would agree with both of you on much of this, I am not so gullible as to believe my government is always honest. But it is a government that has made positive changes, even for others. And mostly, for us, we have been free to worship our God, we have had more opportunity than many for a better life. So like you said, appreciate what goodness there is to appreciate. And plus, even if the nation is not 'Christian', if we together, were the obedient Body of Christ, He could still keep our nation strong. He could still prosper us but that takes us back to obedience, what do we do with the prosperity. Spend it on new toys, or spend it to help others? And I do not mean a Christian 'nation', I mean us, as believers, called out of the world, being the witness we should be. I am not talking about forcing our beliefs on others as in 'making' others follow our beliefs, but just being the example and witness we should be.

redeemedbyhim
Jul 6th 2008, 11:54 PM
Today in America millions attended the church of their choice.
Today in America millions were free to stay home.
Today in America millions worshiped the one true God without fear of reprisals or imprisonment.
Today in America millions prayed in their homes, free from fear.
Today in America men and women went out into the highways and hedges and compeld them to come in, without fear of government interference.
Today in America the pulpit is free to preach God's truths, without fear or government interference.
Today America has freedom OF religion.
Today it is still a government of the people, by the people, for the people.

I'll take America, faults, warts, and all, because today God was freely lifted up. And if He is lifted up He will draw all men to Him.

danield
Jul 7th 2008, 12:35 AM
I just wanted to clarify my comments on my feeling on this country. I know that this country was founded on the Jewish-Christian beliefs. Many of the men who wrote many of our current laws were great men of God, and it was not just by chance that they were elected to represent the values of the citizens of that day because most of the families of that times were founded in Christianity. Many of them had fled the totalitarian rule which pitted a great conflict between the Catholic Church and the Protestant Church. They were divided by faith only in the sense of which version of Christianity they followed. Again they had witnessed these conflicts being influenced by the existing Government over the people of the land and they wanted to prevent this from occurring in the new fledgling government. Freedom of religion rights were not established to facilitate the many religions of the world. Christianity was the predominate religion of these people who settled here and all the other religions were tolerated by these citizen so that they would not be impaired to worship as they pleased. It has only been in the recent decades that these rights have been morphed into this great protection of the citizens from Christianity. I contend that our founding fathers were trying to protect Christianity from government influence not to protect the government from Christianity.

With this being said, I think this country was a very moral country on many fronts. We have done many great things in this world and God has blessed us for many of them. If we want to focus on the horrible things that have occurred through the centuries, then we must look at how the world and society operated to understand just what was occurring during those times. The sins of our forefathers are not as great as many would like for us to believe. In fact many of them did as good a job as possible in the time that they lived, and it makes me proud to be an American.

However, as we all know our government is just a reflection of the views of our population. As we can see our population is loosing sight of many of the principles that God has laid down for us to follow. Critical rules by judges, focused lobbyist groups, concentrated voting groups have influenced our laws greatly. In the process we see how our how our government has fallen pray to promote sins as policy - abortion, homosexuality, greed, gay marriage, single parent families and the list can go on and on. As we stand for freedom for everyone we have stood up for many of these groups who are truly representation of Satanís law.

I am not suggesting that freedom should be suspended because of this offshoot of immoral society, but we should recognize what is happening for what it actually is and place restrictions to protect our way of life. The abolishment of gay marriage comes to mind when writing this.

I am not here to bad mouth our governments activities in ages past because we have not had a bad government. In fact, it has been quite the opposite and something to be very proud of. It is just as of late that we have truly fallen prey to the adversities of Christianity. I really hope that we change our direction, but I am afraid that our path is set and that we will find ourselves further and further away from the Lords teaching as each decade passes.

God Bless!

pinky
Jul 7th 2008, 12:50 AM
Today in America millions attended the church of their choice.
Today in America millions were free to stay home.
Today in America millions worshiped the one true God without fear of reprisals or imprisonment.
Today in America millions prayed in their homes, free from fear.
Today in America men and women went out into the highways and hedges and compeld them to come in, without fear of government interference.
Today in America the pulpit is free to preach God's truths, without fear or government interference.
Today America has freedom OF religion.


Sadly, that is all going to change very soon.



Today it is still a government of the people, by the people, for the people.

No, unfortunately it isn't.

Slug1
Jul 7th 2008, 12:51 AM
Sadly, that is all going to change very soon.

Actually it's more of a world thing, all nations... not just the US will be affected by the change.

pinky
Jul 7th 2008, 02:04 AM
Actually it's more of a world thing, all nations... not just the US will be affected by the change.

I agree with that.

Slug1
Jul 7th 2008, 02:05 AM
I agree with that.So can we stop harping on the US??? Complaining isn't helping us...

redeemedbyhim
Jul 7th 2008, 03:04 AM
Sadly, that is all going to change very soon.

Did you miss the word "today"?
I think I should have added the word yesterday too. Because for over 200 years that has been the case and it will remain the case until God says otherwise.



No, unfortunately it isn't.

It would be if all those who could, actually voted. It's appaling how many don't, including Christians.

And I'm not sure why you're so intent on being so negative about America and making comments like this when you are not a part of the, "we the people"?
Maybe I've missed something, if I have, I'm sorry.

pinky
Jul 7th 2008, 08:48 PM
So can we stop harping on the US???


Can the US stop waging illegal wars that are leading us all toward the beast kingdom?



Complaining isn't helping us...

Apparently......... living in denial is not helping either.

:P

Slug1
Jul 7th 2008, 08:53 PM
Can the US stop waging illegal wars that are leading us all toward the beast kingdom?

Apparently......... living in denial is not helping either.

:PUmmmm, and prevent the will of God? Sure, lets get out of God's will and put off the end times as long as possible and delay Jesus :rolleyes:

I really don't think God will allow that and if we don't stay on the offense then He'll allow another attack to kill a bunch of Americans to get us right back in His will and back in the fight. He did it twice and we keep forgetting, or there's some out there that want us to forget and get out of the will of God.

pinky
Jul 7th 2008, 08:59 PM
Did you miss the word "today"?
I think I should have added the word yesterday too. Because for over 200 years that has been the case and it will remain the case until God says otherwise.




Pro 16:18 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Pro/Pro016.html#18) Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.

quiet dove
Jul 7th 2008, 09:22 PM
Hmmm, Pride and a haughty spirit, just the thing to take you into war, risking your life to help a kid get an education, or help people not live under the reign of a tyrant government.

Shame on you Slug! What could you possibly have been thinking. Fighting and dieing for strangers, and not strangers just in your own country. Hmmm, maybe thats where we are making our mistake :hmm:

Prideful, haughty.... Should stay at home and only worry about ourselves, ....bad Americans!

I wonder if pride and haughty includes sending checks every month like so many other bad Americans do to help feed the hungry. Wouldn't want to interfere.

Slug1
Jul 7th 2008, 09:28 PM
Hmmm, Pride and a haughty spirit, just the thing to take you into war, risking your life to help a kid get an education, or help people not live under the reign of a tyrant government.

Shame on you Slug! What could you possibly have been thinking. Fighting and dieing for strangers, and not strangers just in your own country. Hmmm, maybe thats where we are making our mistake :hmm:

Prideful, haughty.... Should stay at home and only worry about ourselves, ....bad Americans!

I wonder if pride and haughty includes sending checks every month like so many other bad Americans do to help feed the hungry. Wouldn't want to interfere.;)

Or we can do nothing and let satan roll over us and prevent the endtimes cause there would be nothing for Jesus to come back to. Let's let the muslims take over the world and all will worship their god and then... there wouldn't be a need for the beast to setup, he'd already have won :rolleyes:

First attempt by satan was to just wipe out all the Jews and God slapped us into obedience and we prevented satan's plan.

Second attempt by satan is to just take over the whole world with the muslim faith and once again, we had to get slapped by God to get into the fight and prevent it... in this case it's on going.

Third attempt will be with the beast and Jesus will handle this one Himself. Three strikes he's out!!!

In the mean time He uses the Minister's of God to do His work and avenge against this evil.

No, I'll fight, we'll fight and be obedient to God :pp :pray:

quiet dove
Jul 7th 2008, 09:49 PM
;)

Or we can do nothing and let satan roll over us and prevent the endtimes cause there would be nothing for Jesus to come back to. Let's let the muslims take over the world and all will worship their god and then... there wouldn't be a need for the beast to setup, he'd already have won :rolleyes:

First attempt by satan was to just wipe out all the Jews and God slapped us into obedience and we prevented satan's plan.

Second attempt by satan is to just take over the whole world with the muslim faith and once again, we had to get slapped by God to get into the fight and prevent it... in this case it's on going.

Third attempt will be with the beast and Jesus will handle this one Himself. Three strikes he's out!!!

In the mean time He uses the Minister's of God to do His work and avenge against this evil.

No, I'll fight, we'll fight and be obedient to God :pp :pray:

Yep I agree .

theleast
Jul 7th 2008, 09:55 PM
I have been one of the peace advocates as anybody who has read my posts knows.

Something had occured to me over the weekend however. (I had some time to think. lol)

I am not backing down off of my position, but I did want to point out one thing that maybe I missed before. There are many Christians who come from all walks of life, including soldiers and policemen.

Slug1 forgive me for using you as an example, but here is a man who I have no doubt in my mind has a good relationship with God and Christ. I wouldn't dare to think that I am any better off than him because he is a solider and I am not. He is doing what seems right by him, and how can I begin to guess what purpose God has for him? I am no judge.

Slug1 I am sorry if my words have ever offended you.

I will not say however that I think there is a better path than turning the other cheek and being as harmless as a dove for me, perhaps even for most.

What I am saying is let us not take the position that all who kill are bad people or not fulfilling a purpose for God. Let's let God figure that out.

I still think you guys are misinterpreting Romans 13 but that's a topic for another day.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 7th 2008, 10:03 PM
I have been one of the peace advocates as anybody who has read my posts knows.

Something had occured to me over the weekend however. (I had some time to think. lol)

I am not backing down off of my position, but I did want to point out one thing that maybe I missed before. There are many Christians who come from all walks of life, including soldiers and policemen.

Slug1 forgive me for using you as an example, but here is a man who I have no doubt in my mind has a good relationship with God and Christ. I wouldn't dare to think that I am any better off than him because he is a solider and I am not. He is doing what seems right by him, and how can I begin to guess what purpose God has for him? I am no judge.

Slug1 I am sorry if my words have ever offended you.

I will not say however that I think there is a better path than turning the other cheek and being as harmless as a dove for me, perhaps even for most.

What I am saying is let us not take the position that all who kill are bad people or not fulfilling a purpose for God. Let's let God figure that out.

I still think you guys are misinterpreting Romans 13 but that's a topic for another day.

I think that's a very acceptable position to hold...and shows humility to come back and say what you said.

ServantofTruth
Jul 7th 2008, 10:03 PM
Are we to let the Muslims just take over the world? What a question. Apparently God's Will can only be done through the American government and military! Because if they retreat within their boarders we're all doomed.

What does this say about the faith in God, of the people who believe this? That they believe in man's strength over God's?

So sad. Servant of Truth. :(

apothanein kerdos
Jul 7th 2008, 10:11 PM
Are we to let the Muslims just take over the world? What a question. Apparently God's Will can only be done through the American government and military! Because if they retreat within their boarders we're all doomed.

What does this say about the faith in God, of the people who believe this? That they believe in man's strength over God's?

So sad. Servant of Truth. :(

Who's to say God isn't using the US military to accomplish something in His Will? Who's to say He didn't use Nazi Germany and, in response, the Allies to accomplish something in His Will?

ServantofTruth
Jul 7th 2008, 10:28 PM
I know the majority are not always right. I know as Christians we are the minority.

But the wars in Afganistan and Iraq and how American has behaved have been shown be independant people to be unjust. The basis for the war in Iraq 'Weaons of Mass Destruction' was very soon shown to be lies.

But i admit that is unjust in the morals of this world and the LAWS of this world. Yes the West's leaders in a just world, would be on trial now for murder.

I assume here we are more concerned by Biblical standards, telling us what God wants. We will go round in circles.

I want to be like Jesus (God Incarnate), follow his example to me and his Word while flesh on this planet. I want to be like the 12 disciples and Paul. Who obeyed the Roman law and God's law, found the balance and never joined an army and looked to the kingdom of God. I want to be like the first christians.

If i pick up a gun, who's example am i following? Who was violent in Jesus' time? Yes the Jews who didn't recognise who Jesus was and the Roman authorities and soldiers who mocked and killed him.

We all have a choice. I'll follow Jesus, and the apostles/ disciples. Others can follow violence and the Roman army and the Jews who wanted to kill Jesus and Lazarus and anyone who threatened their hold on power and possessions in this life.

Look to the kingdom and store up treasures there. Trust our Lord to take care of this world and people he loves. I meet him in my weakness and use His strength. That is Submitting. Love Servant of Truth. :hug:

mcgyver
Jul 7th 2008, 10:43 PM
First of all, Phaeton...Kudos, thank you for your devotion and love for Christ...takes something special to humble one's self in such a manner :hug:


Who's to say God isn't using the US military to accomplish something in His Will? Who's to say He didn't use Nazi Germany and, in response, the Allies to accomplish something in His Will?

One thing that I have pointed out before, and it always seems to get glossed over :rolleyes:

God has always used war as a mechanism to accomplish His purposes. A couple of examples that really jump out at me are:

Alexander the Great, who conquered the entire known world. In his attempts to Hellenize the world he established Greek as the common (Koine) language, paving the way for the distribution of the Gospels some 300 years later...Accident or God's design?

WWII. The utter horror at what had happened to the Jews under the Third Reich caused a hitherto complacent world to recoil and take notice of the plight of the Jewish people...and in 1948 the state of Israel was re-established. Accident or God's design?

Here is a little known item...Saddam Hussein in early 1990 declared his intent to rebuild Babylon (which God declared would never be rebuilt). In August he invades Kuwait resulting in the First Gulf War, effectively foiling his plans to rebuild Babylon. Accident or God's design?

Kinda makes ya wonder, don't it? :P

Slug1
Jul 7th 2008, 11:47 PM
First of all, Phaeton...Kudos, thank you for your devotion and love for Christ...takes something special to humble one's self in such a manner :hug:



One thing that I have pointed out before, and it always seems to get glossed over :rolleyes:

God has always used war as a mechanism to accomplish His purposes. A couple of examples that really jump out at me are:

Alexander the Great, who conquered the entire known world. In his attempts to Hellenize the world he established Greek as the common (Koine) language, paving the way for the distribution of the Gospels some 300 years later...Accident or God's design?

WWII. The utter horror at what had happened to the Jews under the Third Reich caused a hitherto complacent world to recoil and take notice of the plight of the Jewish people...and in 1948 the state of Israel was re-established. Accident or God's design?

Here is a little known item...Saddam Hussein in early 1990 declared his intent to rebuild Babylon (which God declared would never be rebuilt). In August he invades Kuwait resulting in the First Gulf War, effectively foiling his plans to rebuild Babylon. Accident or God's design?

Kinda makes ya wonder, don't it? :PNo, I don't wonder at all... all I do is be obedient to His design and serve Him however He deems I need to serve.

redeemedbyhim
Jul 8th 2008, 01:05 AM
I know the majority are not always right. I know as Christians we are the minority.

But the wars in Afganistan and Iraq and how American has behaved have been shown be independant people to be unjust. The basis for the war in Iraq 'Weaons of Mass Destruction' was very soon shown to be lies.

But i admit that is unjust in the morals of this world and the LAWS of this world. Yes the West's leaders in a just world, would be on trial now for murder.

I assume here we are more concerned by Biblical standards, telling us what God wants. We will go round in circles.

I want to be like Jesus (God Incarnate), follow his example to me and his Word while flesh on this planet. I want to be like the 12 disciples and Paul. Who obeyed the Roman law and God's law, found the balance and never joined an army and looked to the kingdom of God. I want to be like the first christians.

If i pick up a gun, who's example am i following? Who was violent in Jesus' time? Yes the Jews who didn't recognise who Jesus was and the Roman authorities and soldiers who mocked and killed him.

We all have a choice. I'll follow Jesus, and the apostles/ disciples. Others can follow violence and the Roman army and the Jews who wanted to kill Jesus and Lazarus and anyone who threatened their hold on power and possessions in this life.

Look to the kingdom and store up treasures there. Trust our Lord to take care of this world and people he loves. I meet him in my weakness and use His strength. That is Submitting. Love Servant of Truth. :hug:

Are you saying that those who don't or haven't made the same "choice" you have are not following Jesus?
Maybe I'm mis-understanding you, if so, I apologize.
But, I'm wondering if you think there is no such thing as a just war, or a reason for one to defend themself or even more important, their family?

Should Hitler not have ever been stopped? Should Saddam's rape rooms still be in use? I don't understand your logic. Are we to lay down and let whatever happens, happen?

Slug1
Jul 8th 2008, 01:31 AM
I have been one of the peace advocates as anybody who has read my posts knows.

Something had occured to me over the weekend however. (I had some time to think. lol)

I am not backing down off of my position, but I did want to point out one thing that maybe I missed before. There are many Christians who come from all walks of life, including soldiers and policemen.

Slug1 forgive me for using you as an example, but here is a man who I have no doubt in my mind has a good relationship with God and Christ. I wouldn't dare to think that I am any better off than him because he is a solider and I am not. He is doing what seems right by him, and how can I begin to guess what purpose God has for him? I am no judge.

Slug1 I am sorry if my words have ever offended you.

I am not offended at all cause I know what God has used me for all these years as a soldier and now that, that preparation period is complete He's equipped me for further purpose.



I will not say however that I think there is a better path than turning the other cheek and being as harmless as a dove for me, perhaps even for most.

What I am saying is let us not take the position that all who kill are bad people or not fulfilling a purpose for God. Let's let God figure that out.He has, only some serve as soldiers, some as pastors, some as prophets, some as school janitors, some as house wives, some as dentists, etc etc etc... all faithful and walking the path God placed them on.



I still think you guys are misinterpreting Romans 13 but that's a topic for another day.Let me agree that it is a topic of it's own. Was it you who said God will deliver you from ALL danger, no need to ever utilize a cop? Paul (Acts 23) used the cops so even he didn't hold your opinion cause if what you say is THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH then he'd have discovered this assassination plot and walked all by his little lonesome cause the Holy Spirit would have protected him as you say. But when you read that scripture he didn't do that (trust in God to do it all) and he utilized soldiers (cops) to help secure his trip.

Someday, for whatever reason you call 911 or the cops for help cause a criminal has broken into your home and is hacking his way into your locked room with an ax... please think back to this day and when you're dialing... what happened to your opinion?

theleast
Jul 8th 2008, 01:40 AM
Let me agree that it is a topic of it's own. Was it you who said God will deliver you from ALL danger, no need to ever utilize a cop? Paul (Acts 23) used the cops so even he didn't hold your opinion cause if what you say is THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH then he'd have discovered this assassination plot and walked all by his little lonesome cause the Holy Spirit would have protected him as you say. But when you read that scripture he didn't do that (trust in God to do it all) and he utilized soldiers (cops) to help secure his trip.

Someday, for whatever reason you call 911 or the cops for help cause a criminal has broken into your home and is hacking his way into your locked room with an ax... please think back to this day and when you're dialing... what happened to your opinion?

I don't believe that I am the one that said that specifically, but I have said as much.

Good point with the story from Acts.

I still trust in God to deliver me from ANY AND ALL DANGER! If I am walking in Christ and God chooses to deliver me from evil by a cop, I wouldn't turn down the help. But I also wouldn't feel the need to dial 911. That's just me though. I have complete faith in God.

Slug1
Jul 8th 2008, 02:10 AM
I don't believe that I am the one that said that specifically, but I have said as much.

Good point with the story from Acts.

I still trust in God to deliver me from ANY AND ALL DANGER! If I am walking in Christ and God chooses to deliver me from evil by a cop, I wouldn't turn down the help. But I also wouldn't feel the need to dial 911. That's just me though. I have complete faith in God.I'm sure Paul did also even as he sent the boy to inform the commander of the plot (dialed 911) :hug:

theleast
Jul 8th 2008, 03:39 AM
I'm sure Paul did also even as he sent the boy to inform the commander of the plot (dialed 911) :hug:

Everything God tells us to do has a purpose. If God puts into my heart to dial 911 I would.

I guess I will just have to wait and see when I am put into one of those situations what God puts into my heart.

Good points though.

Slug1
Jul 8th 2008, 01:23 PM
Everything God tells us to do has a purpose. If God puts into my heart to dial 911 I would.

I guess I will just have to wait and see when I am put into one of those situations what God puts into my heart.

Good points though.Just don't get caught in that pattern of "waiting" for God to put something in your heart when He already has... it's called Common Sense. He already has put something on earth to help you and they're called Ministers of God. So when you find yourself in such a situation and you don't get the feeling to call God and a person or yourself is killed due to your inaction, it will be sad to find out that God didn't do anything at that moment cause it already "has been done", for a very long time. You just chose not to use (dial 911) what God has done cause it doesn't fit within "your" opinion of how God works through people such as a cop or a soldier to help other people.

Ya know what, God will use a neighbor and call the police for you cause I agree with you on that one respect... If God has purpose for you and satan is trying to steal that from you, to the point he's gonna take your life and steal whatever God has for you, God will move a person to help you since you won't do the common sense thing and prevent the attack yourself... so that neighbor will call, or a passerby will call, or God will have already placed a cop in the area and will put it in the cops heart to "feel" something is wrong and come to help you.

In the meantime, God is trying to get you to understand that He works through cops and soldiers who in the line of duty will kill... the fact remains, they are doing God's work cause that is the path He placed them on.

dan
Jul 15th 2008, 12:19 AM
God doesnt take sides as is clearly seen in Joshua when the Lord faces Him:
Joshua 5:13-14 "Now when Joshua was near Jericho, he looked up and saw a man standing in front of him with a drawn sword in his hand. Joshua went up to him and asked, "Are you for us or for our enemies?", "Neither," he replied, "but as commander of the army of the LORD I have now come." Then Joshua fell facedown to the ground in reverence"

There are many instances where The Army Of God has (and does) take sides. Want me to make a list?:lol: Maybe just one:

NUM 21:3 And the LORD hearkened to the voice of Israel, and delivered up the Canaanites; and they utterly destroyed them and their cities: and he called the name of the place Hormah.

Revinius
Jul 15th 2008, 02:22 AM
Because he does His will does not mean he takes sides. He looks after those who are with Him, but he is not on 'their side', he is His own side.