And they do hate us because of our freedoms. Stop romanticizing Islamists, in order to be anti-Iraq war… They hang rape victims, homosexuals, and apostates for God’s sake. The question is if we should put ourselves into the middle of their insanity, making ourselves a combatant in their jihad. Either way, they hate us.
[quote]Journeyman wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Speaking of Paul.
Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.
2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same.
4 For he is God?s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God?s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5
Romans 13
Yup, the Roman emperor Caligula was God’s appointed leader and we should all bow down to despots like that. Kings rule by divine right, so we should accept their divine rule. If you believe that, how can you be an American and hold to democracy?[/quote]
The only kings that rule by divine rule are those specifically anointed by god or one o his prophets.
The roman emperor was not god’s appointed king,
by your argument hitler was one of God’s appointed rulers so we should not have interfered, I mean after all he was attacking God’s nation he would have surely saved them.
ever here the story about the man drowning in the ocean. He believed god would save him. so when the first boat came he declined help and said god would save him, the same to the second and the third, when he got to heaven and asked god why he didn’t save him, God replied, I sent you three boats.
People need to act, that is part of how god works in this world
[quote]Journeyman wrote:
We are commanded not to kill. This is in the ten commands, both versions of them. Christ may have overturned some of the laws of the old testament, but he didn’t overturn ‘thou shall not kill’.
It is odd that people who are outraged at the death of an innocent are not also outraged by a war that results in killing on a much larger scale.
Ron Paul is an example of a true conservative that opposed the war in Iraq. Mike Huckabee is an example of a conservative ‘cheerleader’ who doesn’t oppose the war. Paul is a true conservative and a true Christian. (the inference is left unsaid)
Many modern conservatives:
-
are idolators for worshiping the state and the military
-
hypocrites for supporting a war when they oppose the taking of life in other political spheres.
-
think that the USA is God’s chosen people, we are the new “Israel”, and it is up to rule the world as a force of righteousness. this is arrogant hubris
3b) think that it is our duty to God to protect Israel
-
confuse ‘marching as to war’ with ‘marching to war’, e.g. Christ tells us to prepare AS IF for battle, not literally to prepare for a carnal battle.
-
sound like the religious leaders who helped to inflame pro-war sentiment in the run ups to past wars like WWI. Bloodthirsty Christianity is an oxymoron.
-
alienate any one else who doesn’t share their views, so they are driving people away from Christ.
The Iraq war was immoral and cannot be justified by the teachings of Christ or the early Church. Since it is an immoral war, so we should not pray for the success of our troops. We should pray for their safety instead.
Most conservatives do not consider strippers, hookers, drug dealers or assassins to be professions worthy of a Christian. Simply being ‘under orders’, doesn’t excuse immoral behavior.
The same is true for soldiers. There are justified wars, but they are defensive, not imperial. Since this war is not a justified war, it is the duty of citizens and soldiers to oppose the war.
That is the gist of it, this is probably too abbreviated, but in that case, just listen to the hour lecture.
[/quote]
Are you a Christian?
[quote]Journeyman wrote:
We are commanded not to kill. This is in the ten commands, both versions of them. Christ may have overturned some of the laws of the old testament, but he didn’t overturn ‘thou shall not kill’.
It is odd that people who are outraged at the death of an innocent are not also outraged by a war that results in killing on a much larger scale.
Ron Paul is an example of a true conservative that opposed the war in Iraq. Mike Huckabee is an example of a conservative ‘cheerleader’ who doesn’t oppose the war. Paul is a true conservative and a true Christian. (the inference is left unsaid)
Many modern conservatives:
-
are idolators for worshiping the state and the military
-
hypocrites for supporting a war when they oppose the taking of life in other political spheres.
-
think that the USA is God’s chosen people, we are the new “Israel”, and it is up to rule the world as a force of righteousness. this is arrogant hubris
3b) think that it is our duty to God to protect Israel
-
confuse ‘marching as to war’ with ‘marching to war’, e.g. Christ tells us to prepare AS IF for battle, not literally to prepare for a carnal battle.
-
sound like the religious leaders who helped to inflame pro-war sentiment in the run ups to past wars like WWI. Bloodthirsty Christianity is an oxymoron.
-
alienate any one else who doesn’t share their views, so they are driving people away from Christ.
The Iraq war was immoral and cannot be justified by the teachings of Christ or the early Church. Since it is an immoral war, so we should not pray for the success of our troops. We should pray for their safety instead.
Most conservatives do not consider strippers, hookers, drug dealers or assassins to be professions worthy of a Christian. Simply being ‘under orders’, doesn’t excuse immoral behavior.
The same is true for soldiers. There are justified wars, but they are defensive, not imperial. Since this war is not a justified war, it is the duty of citizens and soldiers to oppose the war.
That is the gist of it, this is probably too abbreviated, but in that case, just listen to the hour lecture.
[/quote]
As far as I know there are only two commandments from God in the new covenant.
though shall not kill isn’t one of them.
journeyman you sound like a muslim. hiding in sheep’s clothing.
otherwise you like to pick and chose from the bible and attend the hippie free love church of some of the bible
Ok, now. I think the discussion has been refreshingly fair and courteous. Let’s not go losing our temper.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
And they do hate us because of our freedoms. Stop romanticizing Islamists, in order to be anti-Iraq war… They hang rape victims, homosexuals, and apostates for God’s sake.
The question is if we should put ourselves into the middle of their insanity, making ourselves a combatant in their jihad. Either way, they hate us.[/quote]
I don’t disagree with your observations. Chapter One of Imperial Hubris begins with this quote of Ralph Peters, “If there is a single power that the West underestimates, it is the power of a collective hatred.”
On page 9, "The focused and lethal threat posed to U.S. national security arises not from Muslims being offended by what America is, but rather by their plausible perception, that the things they most love and value - God, Islam, their brethren, and Muslim lands - are being attacked by America.
I believe that this is a fundamental insight into the Middle East.
So I don’t believe that I am romanticizing Islam. On the contrary, I think the ‘they hate us for our freedom’ talk is romantic nonsense.
They don’t care enough to launch a Jihad because I am a moral degenerate (by their standards) that enjoys strippers and whiskey, but they may care if I try to broadcast Baywatch into their homes or sell beer to their children.
They care about serving Allah, obeying Islam, living with other Muslims and ruling Islamic lands in accord with the dictates of their beliefs.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Ok, now. I think the discussion has been refreshingly fair and courteous. Let’s not go losing our temper.[/quote]
depends on how you look at it. someone twisting the views and words of your religion with a clear agenda in multiple treads, not courteous.
I hate when people claim they are christian but learn the whole word of God, don’t follow all of scripture, in the bible these people are called false prophets, false teachers. that is fair and courteous.
such as those who teach god is just a god of love, there are no consequences for your actions. Or the only way to heaven is through good works, it isn’t faith in Jesus Christ, that he died for your sins.\
On and on, it may not be evident to those who aren’t christians how these people are blatantly undermining christianity.
So sorry if that angers me.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
journeyman you sound like a muslim. hiding in sheep’s clothing.
otherwise you like to pick and chose from the bible and attend the hippie free love church of some of the bible[/quote]
I suspect that Jesus would have been viewed much the same way that we tend to view hippies. He was out of the mainstream and rejected the status quo. He hung around with the social outcasts and rejected both the organized religion of his day (the scribes and Pharisees) and the authority of the Roman occupiers (he dismissed Pontius Pilot).
But he did not engage in the violent response of Barrabus. Jesus would have been a progressive, not a conservative. After all, he organized his followers in what was basically a communes. The early Church was often organized communally, so they were communists long before Marx existed.
Even Martin Luther said that it was better to be ruled by a wise Muslim than a foolish Christian. So being called a Muslim is a lot better than being called a fool.
So, that was the nicest thing anyone has said to me today.
Not alot of time right now. However, the earliest Christians didn’t form some sort of communist government. They were trying to spread the word, and simply survive, in a system threatening to squash them before they even got started. They had to come to together.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
by your argument hitler was one of God’s appointed rulers so we should not have interfered, I mean after all he was attacking God’s nation he would have surely saved them.
[/quote]
Heavens NO! I think that the whole idea of ruling by ‘divine right’ is a relic of the middle ages that should have died with the American Revolution.
It isn’t true today and it was never true when the Kings believed it. I don’t think that Hitler, Stalin, Caligula, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln or George W. Bush ruled because God willed it. The rain falls on the just and the unjust, so the way I see, both the just and the unjust can reign.
The only way that a ruler can be just is by striving to be just. Hubris the the sin of most danger to leaders. Likewise, Pride is the sin of most danger to the powerful. Arrogance is the sin of most danger to the clever. Greed is the sin of most danger to the wealthy. The positive way to say this is found in the Beatitudes.
We are not God’s nation any more than Mecca is God’s city.
And he didn’t hang out with sinners as a form of acceptance. He was like a doctor, and they the patient.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
journeyman you sound like a muslim. hiding in sheep’s clothing.
otherwise you like to pick and chose from the bible and attend the hippie free love church of some of the bible[/quote]
I don’t really understand your first comment. Journeyman’s posts have not been pro Muslim, nor anti-Christian in any way.
As for your second comment, perhaps, but a lot of church leaders are also very guilty of doing this, and seemed to be the gist of what Rockwell was saying in his speech.
In other words, most Christians are pro life because they believe it’s wrong to take an innocent life. But, then turn around and support war, which also always results in the taking of innocent lives. Kind of hypocritical when you think about it.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Not alot of time right now. However, the earliest Christians didn’t form some sort of communist government. They were trying to spread the word, and simply survive, in a system threatening to squash them before they even got started. They had to come to together.[/quote]
I’m starting to think that any time I state something that contradicts how modern conservatives interpret the Bible, that the resolution is always ‘the early church was limited and they did what they had to do’. The second half of that seems to be ‘but if they had real power like we do, they would have had to behave like we do’.
The way I see it, Jesus quite actively rejected earthly power. He had no need for it. That is what I learn from Luke 22: Don’t worry so much about being prepared about all that can go wrong.
If you need to walk, there will be sandals. If you need to stay warm, you will have a cloak. If you need to defend yourself, you will have a sword. But two swords are enough. You are not a Centurion in need of 100 swords.
Why do we not try to be Christ-like and reject Earthly power ourselves? Let others rule themselves, we have a hard enough time with the logs in our own eyes. If by our own wisdom, or with God’s help, we are able to rule wisely, we can be an example to others.
[quote]Journeyman wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Not alot of time right now. However, the earliest Christians didn’t form some sort of communist government. They were trying to spread the word, and simply survive, in a system threatening to squash them before they even got started. They had to come to together.
I’m starting to think that any time I state something that contradicts how modern conservatives interpret the Bible, that the resolution is always ‘the early church was limited and they did what they had to do’.
The second half of that seems to be ‘but if they had real power like we do, they would have had to behave like we do’.
The way I see it, Jesus quite actively rejected earthly power. He had no need for it. That is what I learn from Luke 22: Don’t worry so much about being prepared about all that can go wrong.
If you need to walk, there will be sandals. If you need to stay warm, you will have a cloak. If you need to defend yourself, you will have a sword. But two swords are enough. You are not a Centurion in need of 100 swords.
Why do we not try to be Christ-like and reject Earthly power ourselves? Let others rule themselves, we have a hard enough time with the logs in our own eyes. If by our own wisdom, or with God’s help, we are able to rule wisely, we can be an example to others.[/quote]
We aren’t called to just be examples though. I think the apostles made that clear. They preached, ticked people off, etc. To the point of martyrdom, even. They weren’t little wallflowers, afraid to name a sin a sin.
And while Jesus may have rejected earthly power, being what he was, men can’t. How do we otherwise change evil laws? How do we develop economies that raise the standard of living for even the poor?
To heal the sick better with rapidly evolving medical technologies? While the apostles and their successors (if you follow such a brand of Christianity) would do well to seperate themselves from earthly power, most of us can’t.
And, there’s those darn swords again.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
And, there’s those darn swords again.[/quote]
Yes, two of them. Not hundreds like a Barrabus or thousands like a Roman governor. Defend your home, don’t send an Imperial force to take lands thousands of miles from your home.
Jesus must be weeping when he hears talk of ‘shock and awe’ referring to explosives , ‘drain the swamp’ referring to how we treat ‘sand nigg’, err Gods children. Do you honestly believe that the Prince of Peace would have anything to do with this?
I don’t believe that for a second.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
You’d better do a little more biblical research on exactly who “God’s children” are. To become a child of God, one must accept his Son.
[/quote]
Lord, when did we see thee sick or in prison?