[quote]mse2us wrote:
Also pledging ones allegiance to ones nation in a ceremonial fashion in front of witnesses is showing that you are putting loyalty to your nation above anything else. [/quote]
No it doesn’t.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]mse2us wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]mse2us wrote:
Now this leads to another question. Do you think it is okay to pledge or make a solemn promise or agreement of your allegiance to a country? Do you think God cares when they say “I pledge my allegiance” to a country’s flag which symbolizes a country? Let me put it this way do you think God cares when one makes a solemn promise to be loyal to a country?
[/quote]
You tell me.
Romans 13
1 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.
2 Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.[/quote]
Read the scriptures I quoted. The apostles said we obey God as ruler rather than men. So yes they should be in subjection meaning that they should be law abiding citizens following the laws as stated. But when it comes to choosing between obeying God or the rule of man there shouldn’t even be a question as to who you should obey. There are many Bible examples when God’s servants chose to obey God instead of the authorities at the risk of their own life. The first century Christians had to choose between saying "Hail Caesar and throwing incense in the fire to pledge their loyalty to Emperor Nero or face death at the hands of the Gladiators. They chose death.
Sloth, I’m not sure if you’re married but if you are would you want your wife pledging her loyalty to another man and then listening to that man when he told her to do something that you told her not to do? Would that upset you? Would you accept that?
Pledging your loyalty to a nation shows God that you are going to listen to that nation when they want you to do something that breaks God’s law. One is clearly showing God this by taking this oath.
Remember, when Satan offered Jesus all of the kingdoms of the world at that time. He said they had been delivered to him. So that means Satan is in control of all the governments of the world. He exerts his influence on these kingdom in ways we don’t know but the fact that he was able to offer these kingdoms to Jesus shows that he is in control which is why Jesus called him the ruler of this world at John 14:30 and Paul calls him the God of this system of things at 2 Corinthians 4:4.
Religious people really need to think about what they are doing when the pledge their allegiance to a country.[/quote]
Has Satan ever been know to tell the truth? He stretches and bends the truth. Just because Satan says he in control of all governments does not make it so. God is over everything.[/quote]
No D. It would not be recorded in the Bible if it were not true. Also, Satan tried to tempt Jesus. It would not have been a temptation if it were not true. D, I’m the real president of the U.S. I’ll give this country to you if you just believe one of the things I’m showing you from the Bible. Were you tempted? No. Why? Because if I were serious I’d be lying and you’d know that.
Jesus made the statement that the Ruler of the world has no hold on me. Do you think that Satan duped Jesus into thinking that he was the ruler of the world when he was actually lying? Do you think he duped Paul who under inspiration from God said Satan was the God of this system of things? Do you think he duped John who was under inspiration from God when he wrote the following at 1 John 5:19(NIV):
“19 We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of the evil one.”
The whole world D. Except for the Christians who Jesus told to be no part of the world.
And you’re right God is still over everything but he has allowed Satan to be in control of the earth to settle the issues that were raised in the garden of Eden and the issue he raised about man’s loyalty to God at Job chapter 2.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
And:
Sorry, but my God isn’t fooled. He’s not ‘shown’ anything. I’m not sure about your faith, but in mine, God knows, that I know, the pecking order (as you say).
[/quote]
Who is talking about being fooled? If you go against God’s commandments purposely, that shows your true colors, plain and simple. Look at the following scripture (NIV)James 2:14-26
14What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16If one of you says to him, “Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
18But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.
19You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that - and shudder.
20You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? 21Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called God’s friend. 24You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.
25In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? 26As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
And:
Sorry, but my God isn’t fooled. He’s not ‘shown’ anything. I’m not sure about your faith, but in mine, God knows, that I know, the pecking order (as you say).
[/quote]
Who is talking about being fooled? If you go against God’s commandments purposely, that shows your true colors, plain and simple. Look at the following scripture (NIV)James 2:14-26
14What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16If one of you says to him, “Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
18But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.
19You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that - and shudder.
20You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? 21Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called God’s friend. 24You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.
25In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? 26As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.
[/quote]
Sorry, but I have no idea what these verses have to do with our exchange.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Otep wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]atomsftball37 wrote:
I think that’s pretty conclusive IrishSteel?
[/quote]
No.[/quote]
As a non-christian, I would appreciate a slightly more elaborate explanation as to why AtomicFootball’s quote should not be construed as an abject embrace of pacifism.[/quote]
“Non-Christian” could mean a lot. Have you shared with us what religious, if any, faith you claim? You might have and I simply missed it. Just curious as I’ve noticed you in a few of these threads.[/quote]
I’m Baha’i, a member of The Baha’i Faith.
It’s not my intent to de-rail this thread, so I’ll link to information about it for those curious.
Baháʼí symbols - Wikipedia’%C3%AD_Faith
(The wikipedia link is very accurate, but not precise. I include it because it’s much more detailed, and can be seen as roughly unbiased)
[quote]Otep wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Otep wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]atomsftball37 wrote:
I think that’s pretty conclusive IrishSteel?
[/quote]
No.[/quote]
As a non-christian, I would appreciate a slightly more elaborate explanation as to why AtomicFootball’s quote should not be construed as an abject embrace of pacifism.[/quote]
“Non-Christian” could mean a lot. Have you shared with us what religious, if any, faith you claim? You might have and I simply missed it. Just curious as I’ve noticed you in a few of these threads.[/quote]
I’m Baha’i, a member of The Baha’i Faith.
It’s not my intent to de-rail this thread, so I’ll link to information about it for those curious.
Baháʼí symbols - Wikipedia’%C3%AD_Faith
(The wikipedia link is very accurate, but not precise. I include it because it’s much more detailed, and can be seen as roughly unbiased)[/quote]
Thanks much! I’ll check out the links.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Otep wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Otep wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]atomsftball37 wrote:
I think that’s pretty conclusive IrishSteel?
[/quote]
No.[/quote]
As a non-christian, I would appreciate a slightly more elaborate explanation as to why AtomicFootball’s quote should not be construed as an abject embrace of pacifism.[/quote]
“Non-Christian” could mean a lot. Have you shared with us what religious, if any, faith you claim? You might have and I simply missed it. Just curious as I’ve noticed you in a few of these threads.[/quote]
I’m Baha’i, a member of The Baha’i Faith.
It’s not my intent to de-rail this thread, so I’ll link to information about it for those curious.
Baháʼí symbols - Wikipedia’%C3%AD_Faith
(The wikipedia link is very accurate, but not precise. I include it because it’s much more detailed, and can be seen as roughly unbiased)[/quote]
Thanks much! I’ll check out the links. [/quote]
Quick hijack, the Baha’i Temple in India is fucking pimp.
/hijack
[quote]mse2us wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]mse2us wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]mse2us wrote:
Now this leads to another question. Do you think it is okay to pledge or make a solemn promise or agreement of your allegiance to a country? Do you think God cares when they say “I pledge my allegiance” to a country’s flag which symbolizes a country? Let me put it this way do you think God cares when one makes a solemn promise to be loyal to a country?
[/quote]
You tell me.
Romans 13
1 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.
2 Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.[/quote]
Read the scriptures I quoted. The apostles said we obey God as ruler rather than men. So yes they should be in subjection meaning that they should be law abiding citizens following the laws as stated. But when it comes to choosing between obeying God or the rule of man there shouldn’t even be a question as to who you should obey. There are many Bible examples when God’s servants chose to obey God instead of the authorities at the risk of their own life. The first century Christians had to choose between saying "Hail Caesar and throwing incense in the fire to pledge their loyalty to Emperor Nero or face death at the hands of the Gladiators. They chose death.
Sloth, I’m not sure if you’re married but if you are would you want your wife pledging her loyalty to another man and then listening to that man when he told her to do something that you told her not to do? Would that upset you? Would you accept that?
Pledging your loyalty to a nation shows God that you are going to listen to that nation when they want you to do something that breaks God’s law. One is clearly showing God this by taking this oath.
Remember, when Satan offered Jesus all of the kingdoms of the world at that time. He said they had been delivered to him. So that means Satan is in control of all the governments of the world. He exerts his influence on these kingdom in ways we don’t know but the fact that he was able to offer these kingdoms to Jesus shows that he is in control which is why Jesus called him the ruler of this world at John 14:30 and Paul calls him the God of this system of things at 2 Corinthians 4:4.
Religious people really need to think about what they are doing when the pledge their allegiance to a country.[/quote]
Has Satan ever been know to tell the truth? He stretches and bends the truth. Just because Satan says he in control of all governments does not make it so. God is over everything.[/quote]
No D. It would not be recorded in the Bible if it were not true. Also, Satan tried to tempt Jesus. It would not have been a temptation if it were not true. D, I’m the real president of the U.S. I’ll give this country to you if you just believe one of the things I’m showing you from the Bible. Were you tempted? No. Why? Because if I were serious I’d be lying and you’d know that.
Jesus made the statement that the Ruler of the world has no hold on me. Do you think that Satan duped Jesus into thinking that he was the ruler of the world when he was actually lying? Do you think he duped Paul who under inspiration from God said Satan was the God of this system of things? Do you think he duped John who was under inspiration from God when he wrote the following at 1 John 5:19(NIV):
“19 We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of the evil one.”
The whole world D. Except for the Christians who Jesus told to be no part of the world.
And you’re right God is still over everything but he has allowed Satan to be in control of the earth to settle the issues that were raised in the garden of Eden and the issue he raised about man’s loyalty to God at Job chapter 2.[/quote]
So you are saying that when Satan tempted Adam and Eve that he was speaking the truth? You are denser than I thought.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]atomsftball37 wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
I was hoping someone would cite that passage - Thanks!
Very important to begin that passage from verse 20: “For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.”
And then he goes into explaining for the rest of the passage that merely fulfilling the letter of the law was not sufficient - you had to fulfill the spirit of law. That was the basis for all of the statements that followed - “you have heard it said - but I say unto you”
BUT IRISH THAT MEANS BEING PERFECT ENTAILS DOING THOSE THINGS!?! - yep, exactly right. to avoid failing at not keepong the law (the only other means of going to heaven) means that you have to have kept the letter and spirit of the Law of Moses.
SO DON"T WE STILL HAVE TO DO THOSE THINGS? - most certainly, see the last verse in that chapter. “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” A lofty goal to be sure.
DOES THAT MEAN THAT CHRISTAINS CANNOT PROTECT THEIR LIFE / FAMILY OR BE A SOLDIER IN DEFENSE OF HIS NATION? Romans 13 settles the soldier/state action question - Governments do not bear the sword in vain, but use it to punish evil - thus evil acts deserving of death are able to be dealt with by the sword (death). If the government can punish evil by death from a military arm, then it must have a military to effect the punishment of evil men, thus serving in the military to protect the homes and lives of your fellow countrymen from evil threats is not only good but as part of the God-given responsibility of a government - a virtuous act of the citizen called to military service.
Luke 22:35-38 - the twelve disciples are sent out without money, or even extra shoes, but they do take 2 swords for protection and Jesus tell them to leave the swords? No, he states, “it is enough” - directly allowing for the disciples to take and use these swords for their own personal defense.
Now, i am running out of time for posting today - so I’ll have to close here - but the point is this - the Bible does not forbid war, being a soldier (just be content with your wages) or having weapons for self-defense.
Thus there has to be some kind of connection between the Sermon on the Mount and personal defense of one’s life and family. here it is - Just because I love you, doesn’t mean I will let you kill or injure myself or my family - nowhere in the Sermon on the Mount is there a requirement to allow someone to rape your wife or kill you, or harm your children to prove your righteousness - what is required is this:
you do not allow petty insult to lead to violence based on your pride
you do not hold a grudge for a lost judgements from a lawsuit - if you lost - give even more, because you were in the wrong.
you demonstrate more than the legally required service to your nation - roman law allowed for soldiers to compel civilians to carry their equipment exactly one mile - the Christian should be willing to go farther.
you should give your coat to someone in need and see what else you can provide as well - charitable in your dealings with the less fortunate.
the last part of that passage is self-explanatory, but let me know if you are having trouble with that. Bototm line - the sermon on the mount does not prohibit one from defending his life, his family, his property or his nation from the deeds of evil men.
[/quote]
Happy to oblige you Irish.
I don’t quite follow the jist of what you are saying in the first part of your post,
perhaps you could return a favor and make it clearer for me.
Romans
4For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
I think we can agree that the God of the Old Testament is a Violent one and that someone, a minister can do his will even though what they may do is a sin or sinful no?
Luke
36He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’[b]; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”
38The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.”
“That is enough,” he replied.
Isaiah 53:12
Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, [g]
and he will divide the spoils with the strong, [h]
because he poured out his life unto death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.
For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors.
What is verse 37 saying here?
Leviticus 24
20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. As he has injured the other, so he is to be injured.
Deuteronomy 12
21 Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.
Exodus 21
23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
Just so we can very clearly see what it is Jesus is mentioning when he says 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 think that is explicitly clear.
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
Jesus made a point to say that those that take to the sword will die by the sword. This had nothing to do with the fact that he was being taken to die for our sins.
Jesus mentioned, as previously noted, that we should return evil to no one. How can you disregard this simple commandment? Also the simple commandment to love your neighbor as yourself?
And why did you disregard Micah? If that is a future time, then wouldn’t those “christians” that fight in wars be judged as well? Jehovah is showing his view of those that take to the sword is he not?
You can’t just disregard those comments because you don’t agree.[/quote]
Easy questions - first, of course those that live by the sword will die by the sword. Soldiers get killed in combat. You will find the same truth taught Myamoto Musashi, Johannes Liechtenauer, even Saxo the Dane. It is a universal truth. That doesn’t extrapolate into a prohibition from taking up a sword - it merely points out the logical conclusion of being a swordsman.
Not disregarding the commandment at all. Returning evil to someone is purposefully committing an evil act to them. He rapes my wife, so I go an rape his wife- that is an evil deed returned. Simply stopping someone from committing the evil deed in the first place is not evil - it is good, it is an act of love.
Seriously - you can’t honestly think like your posts are indicating . . do you?
I do love my neighbor as myself. If i were going to murder his family I would hope he’d shoot me too . . . you’ve got some majorly twisted up reasoning going on here if you think loving someone means allowing them to commit evil deeds. You’re not a parent are you?
I’m not disregarding Micah - I am longing for the day when Christ does rule over the whole world and there are no more evil men among us. I just know for a fact that the time that Micah speaks of is not now, because we still do have evil men committing evil deeds among us.
Preventing Evil is not the Same as Committing an Evil Deed. The fact that living by the sword will likely result in you dying by the sword is not a prohibition against using the sword for a righteous purpose. Living by racing motorcycles means you will die racing motorcycles - that would not be a prohibition against racing motorcycles - merely a statement of logical conclusion.
any other scripture and logic twisting you want to engage in?
I am not going to bring up WW2 again, but I thought of another interesting case.
How about the civil war? There were people who identified themselves as Christians on both sides. Should they have fought each-other? And don’t say…well as it wasn’t a religious war it doesn’t matter… Why fight people who have the same religious beliefs as you because of politics? Human governments aren’t going to last anyhow. Arrrr! Them yankee factories cause global warming! Abe ain’t southern enough to be our president Arrr! - Arrrg! Them southern hicks best not be leaving this here Union we’ve got; oh and they have too many slaves too!
Is this worth killing a brother in faith over?
[quote]wimpuskhan wrote:
I am not going to bring up WW2 again, but I thought of another interesting case.
How about the civil war? There were people who identified themselves as Christians on both sides. Should they have fought each-other? And don’t say…well as it wasn’t a religious war it doesn’t matter… Why fight people who have the same religious beliefs as you because of politics? Human governments aren’t going to last anyhow. Arrrr! Them yankee factories cause global warming! Abe ain’t southern enough to be our president Arrr! - Arrrg! Them southern hicks best not be leaving this here Union we’ve got; oh and they have too many slaves too!
Is this worth killing a brother in faith over? [/quote]
That’s actually a great question. If you spend any time reading the diaries and journals of soldiers from that war, you will find conflicted people on both sides trying to come to grips with the war and the fact the brother was fighting brother and believer was fighting believer.
This will inevitably lead to a civil war thread, I just know it - but here goes. Majority of the Christians in the North went to war because they honestly believed that slavery was an evil that needed to be ended by force. Majority of Christians in the South went to war not to defend slavery, but to protect their homes from a War of Northern Aggression. They were trying to defend their homes while the Yanks were trying to end an institution.
Now, I know that is an over-simplification because there were regional, individual and societal motivations all over the map. But from what I read in newspapers and journals of the time, this seems to a general consensus of the views from each side.
Still a massive tragedy regardless of motivations.
Now was either motivation worth killing a fellow Christian over? Here’s why this is a great question.
At the end of it all, when your life is over. You and You only will have to stand before God and give an individual account of your life and the decisions you made. No one else will be asked for you - you have to answer for yourself. That’s why the individual priesthood of the believer is such a critical doctrine along with free will.
It doesn’t matter what the soldiers in the civil war chose to fight and die for, that wasn’t your life. You have to study the Scriptures for yourself and come to your own conclusion on this issue and how it applies to your life.
What I have outlined in my responses on this thread is based on my understanding of scripture. I find no injunction in scripture that prevents me from protecting my family and my home. Even if you agree with me, you should still go and read it for yourself and come to a settled conclusion for yourself.
One thing that amazes me on these threads is how much of what a lot of you post is based on so little actual personal Bible study. It shows!
If you want real answers about anything go to the primary (original) source documents - study it for yourself. Think for yourself! We can always tell someone who really studies all of the primary source information on all perspectives as opposed to the guy who does the quick google search for some talking points on his particular perspective of the day. There’s a depth of understanding that comes from real study. STUDY!!
Sorry - got off on a rabbit trail there - I hope I answered your question. . . .
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]wimpuskhan wrote:
I am not going to bring up WW2 again, but I thought of another interesting case.
How about the civil war? There were people who identified themselves as Christians on both sides. Should they have fought each-other? And don’t say…well as it wasn’t a religious war it doesn’t matter… Why fight people who have the same religious beliefs as you because of politics? Human governments aren’t going to last anyhow. Arrrr! Them yankee factories cause global warming! Abe ain’t southern enough to be our president Arrr! - Arrrg! Them southern hicks best not be leaving this here Union we’ve got; oh and they have too many slaves too!
Is this worth killing a brother in faith over? [/quote]
That’s actually a great question. If you spend any time reading the diaries and journals of soldiers from that war, you will find conflicted people on both sides trying to come to grips with the war and the fact the brother was fighting brother and believer was fighting believer.
This will inevitably lead to a civil war thread, I just know it - but here goes. Majority of the Christians in the North went to war because they honestly believed that slavery was an evil that needed to be ended by force. Majority of Christians in the South went to war not to defend slavery, but to protect their homes from a War of Northern Aggression. They were trying to defend their homes while the Yanks were trying to end an institution.
Now, I know that is an over-simplification because there were regional, individual and societal motivations all over the map. But from what I read in newspapers and journals of the time, this seems to a general consensus of the views from each side.
Still a massive tragedy regardless of motivations.
Now was either motivation worth killing a fellow Christian over? Here’s why this is a great question.
At the end of it all, when your life is over. You and You only will have to stand before God and give an individual account of your life and the decisions you made. No one else will be asked for you - you have to answer for yourself. That’s why the individual priesthood of the believer is such a critical doctrine along with free will.
It doesn’t matter what the soldiers in the civil war chose to fight and die for, that wasn’t your life. You have to study the Scriptures for yourself and come to your own conclusion on this issue and how it applies to your life.
What I have outlined in my responses on this thread is based on my understanding of scripture. I find no injunction in scripture that prevents me from protecting my family and my home. Even if you agree with me, you should still go and read it for yourself and come to a settled conclusion for yourself.
One thing that amazes me on these threads is how much of what a lot of you post is based on so little actual personal Bible study. It shows!
If you want real answers about anything go to the primary (original) source documents - study it for yourself. Think for yourself! We can always tell someone who really studies all of the primary source information on all perspectives as opposed to the guy who does the quick google search for some talking points on his particular perspective of the day. There’s a depth of understanding that comes from real study. STUDY!!
Sorry - got off on a rabbit trail there - I hope I answered your question. . . .[/quote]
You are very correct in saying that it will come down to just me and God in the end. I am just asking these questions trying to get a perspective on what people think it means to be a Christian and the code of conduct one should have.
You are absolutely right I should study more. That is something I am working on. However doing an online search for talking points is something I have never done, nor does my perspective change much from day to day.
[quote]wimpuskhan wrote:
You are very correct in saying that it will come down to just me and God in the end. I am just asking these questions trying to get a perspective on what people think it means to be a Christian and the code of conduct one should have.
You are absolutely right I should study more. That is something I am working on. However doing an online search for talking points is something I have never done, nor does my perspective change much from day to day.[/quote]
Sorry wimpuskhan - that’s why i hate rabbit trails - you end up using a howitzer where a .22 would do. I was not aiming that rant at you personally and I apologize for the confusion.
Questions are a great thing and keep on asking them! never afraid to answer a question.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]wimpuskhan wrote:
You are very correct in saying that it will come down to just me and God in the end. I am just asking these questions trying to get a perspective on what people think it means to be a Christian and the code of conduct one should have.
You are absolutely right I should study more. That is something I am working on. However doing an online search for talking points is something I have never done, nor does my perspective change much from day to day.[/quote]
Sorry wimpuskhan - that’s why i hate rabbit trails - you end up using a howitzer where a .22 would do. I was not aiming that rant at you personally and I apologize for the confusion.
Questions are a great thing and keep on asking them! never afraid to answer a question.[/quote]
I understand why you thought that though. My failed attempt at humor definitely took away from the seriousness of my question.
Stated,
“…Now this leads to another question. Do you think it is okay to pledge or make a solemn promise or agreement of your allegiance to a country? Do you think God cares when they say “I pledge my allegiance” to a country’s flag which symbolizes a country? Let me put it this way do you think God cares when one makes a solemn promise to be loyal to a country?”
II Kings 5:15
“And he returned to the man of God, he and all his company, and came, and stood before him and said, Behold, now I know that there is no God in all earth, but in Israel…”
II Kings 5:18-19
“In this thing the Lord pardon thy servant, that when my master goeth into the house of Rimmon to worship there, and he leaneth on my hand, and I bow down myself in the house of Rimmon: when I bow down myself in the house of Rimmon, the Lord pardon thy servant in this thing. And he said to him, Go in peace…”
Here we see Naaman’s praise for Israel’s God and for his prophet. Naaman, to his credit, gives credit where credit is due-to Israel’s God and to his representative, the israelite prophet (perhaps Naaman’s servants deserve some credit, too, but at least they are able to hear Naathan call himself a “servant” of Elisha (II Kings 5:17), when they accompany him back to the prophet’s house). Naaman’s bold statement of faith is true monothesim: “I now know that there is no God in all the world except in Israel.”
Naaman then asks, how is Yahweh to be worshiped in a foreign land, under pagan domination (Rimmon)? He was concerned that when his master went into the house of Rimmon, to give reverence and he followed, doing likewise at the request of his master, would Yahweh be merciful toward him and forgive him. Elisha does not reprimand Naaman but instead says “go in peace” for “…the lord seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the lord looketh on the heart” (I Sam. 16:7).
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
Micah 4:3
“He will judge between many peoples and will settle disputes for strong nations far and wide. They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore.”
[/quote]
Joel 3:10
Beat your plowshares into swords and your pruning hooks into spears. Let the weakling say, “I am strong!”