quote:

ORIGINAL: todd_t

quote:

God will still smite the faithful as well as the unfaithful. It's completely at His choosing.

According to this view, God sounds like a tyrant with manic-depression.

quote:

ORIGINAL: schtumpy

So you're arguing that the Godly and their communities suffer less retribution at the hands of God than do the Godless?

quote:

Any data to back that up?

quote:

ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe

quote:

ORIGINAL: schtumpy

So you're arguing that the Godly and their communities suffer less retribution at the hands of God than do the Godless?

The bible says God reserves wrath for His enemies...Yet He chastises His own...

quote:

quote:

Any data to back that up?

Does God's word count for "data"

quote:

ORIGINAL: schtumpy

And the results are the same.

quote:


No.
It counts for lots of stuff but here it would be great to see some numbers to back up Jack's certainty that the faithful fare better than the unfaithful in the suffering stakes.

quote:

So every bit of suffering delivered upon the wicked is a result of their wickedness, though some seem to get away with it - apart from that bitterness and loneliness stuff.
But the suffering of the Godly has nothing to do with their Godliness.
It's just divine justice for Original Sin.

quote:

So you're arguing that the Godly and their communities suffer less retribution at the hands of God than do the Godless?

quote:

Any data to back that up?

quote:

And how would you define such righteous retribution?

quote:

For example, I assume if a brothel burned down and all inside were killed, you would say this is a result of their wickedness.

quote:

But when a church roof collapses and all inside are killed this is due to Original Sin.
And anyway, it's probably a good thing because the faithful will be safely borne to the bosom of Abraham.

I really love it.

quote:

I don't know if you sincerely have no clue what you are discussing, or are being willfully ignorant about the subject. ...
This rather obvious, and the fact that I have to lay it out to you as I would a child simply demonstrates in and of itselfhow simple minded our culture has become.

quote:

If a man and woman choose a lifetime of faithfulness to each other in marriage, raising their children to understand right and wrong, to love others and be honest and faithful, they will have a radically different life experience than those who are adulterous and unfaithful, who abandon their children to seek their own pleasure, and live lives of duplicity.

quote:

quote:


Any data to back that up?

I don't know of any data to the contrary. A good modern example might be the difference between N. and S. Korea.

quote:

I agree utterly and totally.
My problem is that this living of a rich life has nothing to do with Godlessness or Godliness.

quote:

Do you deny that there are men raising their children and loving their families and living rich and fulfilling lives in Teheran and Delhi, Helsinki and Copenhagen, San Francisco and Sydney?

quote:

People live these full lives all over the world and only one third of them are Christian of any persuasion - far fewer being Evangelical.

quote:

Calvinists and Catholics, Shi'ites, Sunnis, Hindus, Buddhists and Atheists are all raising their kids, teaching them the difference between right and wrong, remaining faithful to their wives and contributing to the greater good of their communities. I agree utterly and totally.

quote:

My problem is that this living of a rich life has nothing to do with Godlessness or Godliness.

quote:

Do you deny that there are men raising their children and loving their families and living rich and fulfilling lives in Teheran and Delhi, Helsinki and Copenhagen, San Francisco and Sydney?

quote:

People live these full lives all over the world and only one third of them are Christian of any persuasion - far fewer being Evangelical.
Calvinists and Catholics, Shi'ites, Sunnis, Hindus, Buddhists and Atheists are all raising their kids, teaching them the difference between right and wrong, remaining faithful to their wives and contributing to the greater good of their communities.

quote:

In other words, it's fine to argue that if you embrace a personal relationship with your Saviour, you will be blessed with, well, a personal relationship with your Saviour.
But I can't look the parents of my dying children in the eye and think for a minute that maybe this wouldn't happen if they were more Godly.

quote:

Or Vermont and Mississippi?

quote:

ORIGINAL: garyhicks

Hi GHitch- Thanks for your response. Sorry I am so late- I got on involved with another subject on a different board.

quote:

You say we humans are responsible for what government is doing, yet it seems nothing can be done about their actions. The powers our own government are utilizing are satanic and wicked.

quote:

...but when we speak of 'natural rights' or 'God given rights' such as are enumerated in the Constitution- I am hard pressed to find these things written in scripture, and in some cases it almost seems that the reverse is true.

quote:

For example, the right to self defense. ... but where in scripture is the right to self defense?
... 'truths are self- evident' and that everyone has these 'inalienable rights' and then tie in the phrase that we were endowed with these by our Creator- it begs the question----where did God say anything about most of what is written in the Bill of rights?

quote:

If we say, no search without a warrant, where was that written in scripture?

quote:

If we say, no direct tax without apportionment, scripture and verse please?

quote:

If we say 'a just war' please show me in scripture. If we say 'wars of agression' are wrong then where are 'defensive wars' right?

quote:

I know Rom. 13 will inevitably come up, and that the higher powers do not bear the sword in vain. Please tell me how far that sword can go? If he actually is to execute wrath against him that doeth evil, then pray tell me what kinds of evil can he use this sword upon?

quote:

Does he execute the homosexuals, the witches, and anyone who kindles sticks on the Sabbath day?

quote:

Does he now have God on his side because some other nation does things different than we do?

quote:

Don't we think the other people we are fighting against do not pray sometimes to the very same God, and use the very same scriptures to claim us as their enemy?

quote:

If there is no scripture defining how the use of this sword is to be used, is it in the hands of men to use as they see fit? How convienient. If I don't like something you said- I'll just use my sword.

quote:

Put yourself in the position, say of the president- in other words, your the man now. Your a Christian and your going to do it right. How do you know its God's will for you to give the go-ahead for men to go and kill other men who may be just as ignorant about what they are fighting against as the ones you send?

quote:

And how would you know these 'enemies' are not just as deluded as we are about what is right and wrong?

quote:

Do you now have God on your side because some other nation does things different than we do?

quote:

Of course I am applying these things to current wars and our current warmongers, but even in Nazi Germany there can be no excuse for them killing innocent people anymore than when we kill innocent people. Call it 'collateral damage' or what have you, how many people who were just as uninvolved with the war as we are were exterminated in a few seconds at Hiroshima, or Nagasaki?

quote:

How would you like it as your sitting at your computer responding to a post that a foreign country drops a bomb on you and kills your whole family--or while your eating dinner---or while you are out buying food---or while you were washing your clothers.

quote:

I know the 'just war' theory came into existance with the 'aid' of humans adding what they thought was 'justifiable' and what was not, but again please show scriputure and verse in the New Testament in this dispensation of time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

I agree utterly and totally.
My problem is that this living of a rich life has nothing to do with Godlessness or Godliness.

What? You do realize that this is certainly an expectation of Christianity?

quote:

quote:

People live these full lives all over the world and only one third of them are Christian of any persuasion - far fewer being Evangelical.

So? The fact that a certain number of people do what is right and experience a right result doesn’t make that standard not ‘Godly’! That’s basic logic!

quote:

Well, the reality is they don’t all teach them the same thing; and you are conveniently ignoring those that claim to be teaching them the ‘right thing’ and do exactly the opposite of what we apparently both agree is good behavior.

quote:

People don’t just naturally do what is good.

quote:

quote:

My problem is that this living of a rich life has nothing to do with Godlessness or Godliness.

Your problem is that you live in a world that allows you to live a life according to already established Judeo-Christian principles, and so can pretend you derived those standards of good on your own. You think they happen naturally; but anyone who has spent a bit of time travelling to the less civilized places in the world, or who has a modicum of knowledge about history, discovers that humanity doesn’t do what we might agree is good very often.

quote:

quote:

In other words, it's fine to argue that if you embrace a personal relationship with your Saviour, you will be blessed with, well, a personal relationship with your Saviour.
But I can't look the parents of my dying children in the eye and think for a minute that maybe this wouldn't happen if they were more Godly.

I appreciate the red herring, but I never claimed, not would I claim, that Godliness prevent sickness and death; in fact I have said numerous times that this certainly isn't the case in this life. Again, either you are intentionally ignoring what is said, or simply can't remember over the course of a few days.

quote:

we are reminded again and again throughout history (which God has graciously recorded for us in Scripture) that sin leads to death - children die as result of their parents creating societies based on willful rebellion against God, and the entire society suffers, even those who didn't create the original circumstances of that rebellion.

quote:

We can accept this as truth and seek through the advocacy of truth and our own obedience to alleviate the consequences of such rebellion, or we too will experience the same result.

quote:

And many other faiths. It is not exclusive to Christianity.

quote:

Yes it does if they don't believe in the Christian God. If the same proportion of Chistians and non-Christians act in a similarly moral way, it doesn't make that standard "Godly". It makes it human.

quote:

I think we can both agree this goes for many Christians as well.

quote:

I think this line is one of our main disagreements.
People do just naturally do what is good.
And people do just naturally what is not.
Nobody is perfect, but I believe that most people try to do the best they can - no matter what their faith.

quote:

Those "less civilized" places are often the most devoutly Christian - well, as often as the most civilized.

quote:

And history shows that as the most civilized places improve their human rights and their standards of societal behaviour, there has been a reduction in religiosity - with the glaring exception of your country.

quote:

That seems like a couple of mixed messages to me.
God smites societies - even the innocent within those societies - who rebel against Him and we should be Godly "or we too will experience the same result"
It seems a little incongruous to argue that and still say you've never argued that Godliness prevents sickness and death.

quote:

I've merely argued that whether or not a society or a person is Godly makes no difference to what happens to them in this life.

quote:

Well, I think if you took what I said – that righteous living ameliorates the destruction of sinful behavior to mean that ‘no children would ever die’, then you are a very poor reader.

quote:

Somehow your posts no longer feel satisfying unless there's at least a touch of condescension - or even outright insult.

I may well indeed be a poor reader because I never thought for a second that you meant that righteous living ameliorates the "destruction of sinful behaviour".
I thought you meant that God chose to reward the Godly and to punish the unGodly in this life depending upon their behaviour.

And I continue to marvel at the thought that it was Christianity that promoted civilization and was the basis of civilization. You've argued the point before and I marvelled then as well.

If you ask historians of South America, the Middle East, your native Americans or our native Aborigines, I'm not convinced "civilizing" will be the first word that comes to mind in regard to Christianity and these peoples and their lands. But hey, that's only over the course of many hundreds of years.

There are stronger arguments - in my humble opinion - that say that civilization and the immense breakthroughs we have made in the last half a millenium have ridden on the back of the Enlightenment, rather than any particular superstition or mythology.

quote:

ORIGINAL: schtumpy
And history shows that as the most civilized places improve their human rights and their standards of societal behaviour, there has been a reduction in religiosity - with the glaring exception of your country.

quote:

God smites societies - even the innocent within those societies -

quote:

"Whenever I say anything about uprooting a nation or a kingdom, and smashing it and sending destruction on it;
If, in that very minute, that nation of which I was talking is turned away from its evil, my purpose of doing harm to them will be changed.
And whenever I say anything about building up a nation or a kingdom, and planting it;
If, in that very minute, it does evil in my eyes, going against my orders, then my good purpose, which I said I would do for them, will be changed." - Jer 18

quote:

And are the Scandinavians, Canadians and Australians more or less Christian in terms of history and culture than Iran, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan?

quote:

Correlation does not equal causation.

quote:

quote:



Correlation does not equal causation.

Actually, casual correlation doesn't prove causation - but consistently observed correlation can certainly be evidence for a relationship between two factors.

quote:

Ok.
Many countries are, what we would call civilized now.
How many of them would we have called civilized by our standards 150 years ago?

Your country?
Hardly.
Mine?
I don't think so.

The Greeks?
The Romans?
The Egyptians?

Does the immense shift toward improvement in law and order, education, health, social welfare, women's suffrage, child labour, civil liberties, civil rights etc etc over the last mere 150 years a result of Christianity?
You can say "Yes" if you want but it's a challenging argument considering what it presided over for the previous 1500 years.

quote:

Alright then.
Here's some other correlations.
Most of the civilized countries I mentioned are mainly white.
You want to argue racial superiority?
They're mostly European, or from European descent.
You want to argue from a climate perspective?
Or natural resources perspective?

quote:

But of course you don’t, like most moderns, you see barely a decade in the past.

quote:

So no, Jesus is not just for white people, as my time in Africa and South America confirmed for me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GHitch

quote:

ORIGINAL: garyhicks

Hi GHitch- Thanks for your response. Sorry I am so late- I got on involved with another subject on a different board.

Tell me about it! I have the same problem.

Hi again, and thanks for your thoughtful responses- I appreciate the time you have taken to communicate your thoughts with me.

This will be long...

quote:

You say we humans are responsible for what government is doing, yet it seems nothing can be done about their actions. The powers our own government are utilizing are satanic and wicked.

Indeed, it also seems they have done everything they can to make sure no one can resist anymore! Civil disobedience, writing to your congressman, public demonstrations, etc etc. are all legitimate ways of protest and effort to make a change. Very difficult though now that the size of government has gotten so huge and entrenched in bureaucratic red tape.

Revolution is the most extreme reaction but can be necessary - The American revolution was such.

The revolution is the issue I would like to adress with you. You say here that it 'can be necessary.' With that in mind, and what you say about all the injustice that happens during war, are we really ready to say- even though we will probably become guilty of murdering some innocent people-it is a valid 'reaction' and even it 'can be necessary?' Necessary to do evil?

I am not trying to sound holier than anyone else, but this seems like the same type of reasoning our own wicked government has used to justify their killing of innocent people. My first question would be- IF we condemn our own government for doing this, what makes it right for us to do the same thing?

it is wrong for government to do this, why is wrong for them to do this and yet it would be right for us to do it and even 'necessary?'

My comment from scripture is 'Shall we do evil that good may come---God forbid.'

quote:

...but when we speak of 'natural rights' or 'God given rights' such as are enumerated in the Constitution- I am hard pressed to find these things written in scripture, and in some cases it almost seems that the reverse is true.

Good questions and sometimes really not obvious yet scripture does indeed have many instances of such.

quote:

For example, the right to self defense. ... but where in scripture is the right to self defense?
... 'truths are self- evident' and that everyone has these 'inalienable rights' and then tie in the phrase that we were endowed with these by our Creator- it begs the question----where did God say anything about most of what is written in the Bill of rights?

These rights are implicit in the 10 commandments.

Using the BBE version: Ex. from Exod. 20 "Do not put anyone to death without cause." (or "do no murder")
In this law there is an implicit recognition of ones right to life. It is also implicit that if it is forbidden to take life unjustly, then it must also be right to defend ones life against any such attempt.

It also implies that when one can prevent such a wrongful taking of life one is obliged to do so - such as stopping a murder from occurring when it is within ones power. This is why the infamous incidents in large cities where passers by did nothing to assist victims of robbery, murder or rape etc. is so despicable in the eyes of all. We all recognize such a non response as cowardice and thus intrinsically recognize a right to self defense and defense by others whenever any law is witnessed being violated. These "inalienable rights" are all implicit is the whole 10 commandments.

If God had not truly given such rights to man, no such laws would have been made.

If this is the true case, that these 'rights' are implicitly within these statutes and as you say we are, 'forbidden to take life unjustly...' then how would that square up with going to war? We have soldiers on both sides basically adopting a position they have been told from officials above them, whether or not that position is indeed true, and whether or not that position is the total picture is unknown to them.

For example, we go into Iraq saying we want to liberate them from a brutal dictator thus stirring up emotions of justice and patriotism in the soldiers, but in the big picture they may not understand that 'securing our interests in the region' means stealing their oil and making them basically another puppet nation in our quest for global dominion.

What it basically boils down to is that people are hired by governments to do their dirty work for them. They extract money from taxpayers based upon similar pretexts to get the publics support and transfer funds from our pockets into the pockets of the global banking cartel who are financing both sides to their advantage.

Are we to think that these soldiers can now execute justice in a war in which they are just the pawns on the chess board? They are obligated to use the weapons provided for them, which almost guarantees innocent people will be killed.

Then of course when one says 'innocent' the reverse must also appear which is 'guilty.' Just because the other side has engaged in the deception their leaders have imposed upon them does that make them guilty of death? What if a person on our side was deceived by the orders given to them- does that make them also guilty of death? The bigger picture emerges as we really think about loving and judging our neighbor as we would judge ourself.

I guess the bottom line here is that one should positively stay out of the fray unless they can know with certainty the whole picture before they go off shooting at everything. Look at how other countries view our approach to supposedly getting the bad guy 'Osama bin Laden'

They are on record as saying things like 'If you really wanted to come over to get Osama, then why did you have to blow up our city and kill my family and..and..and....'

We then give them our pitiful excuse that we will try do better as they continue on down the same road they were on before they said that.

I guess I am looking for a solution to the existing problems we are encountering as the whole country is being taken over by the New World Order. There may be no solution as is stated 'Who is able to make war with the beast?'

I am not saying that the beast of Rev. has totally came into existence, but even then the situation is still so critical. How would you propose a revolution that was both just and could actually impact what is going on?


?

20:14 Do not be false to the married relation. This command implies the right of a married person to expect fidelity and to protest infidelity. Defense of ones marriage is implied. This may also imply the right of all to defend themselves against rape (although other commands elsewhere imply this more explicitly in the laws against sexual abuse and rape).

20:15 Do not take the property of another. This intrinsically implies the right to private property. Thus it also necessarily implies the right to defend ones property from unlawful removal or damage by another. It implies equally to the right of incorporated entities to private properties.

20:16 Do not give false witness against your neighbour. This implies the right to have only the truth spoken of oneself. This is the biblical basis for all defamatory type laws. It is also implicit here that one must provide witness against or for ones neighbor in judicial matters when one is an eyewitness etc.

quote:

If we say, no search without a warrant, where was that written in scripture?

This is covered in the command not to steal. Private property implies the right to no unwarranted intrusions on ones property. Thats what the 'private' means.

quote:

If we say, no direct tax without apportionment, scripture and verse please?

Taxes are a more complex area. But we can assume that there are limits as in all things.

quote:

If we say 'a just war' please show me in scripture. If we say 'wars of agression' are wrong then where are 'defensive wars' right?

Just wars are such as that waged by Israel against Amalek and others. The American revolution was a just war in many ways (although many injustices are committed in all wars). WWII was a just war against aggression and genocide.
If individuals have private property rights given by their creator, then nations of citizens also have the same. Thus it is the right and duty of nations to protect its citizens against invasions and the consequent thefts and murders involved.

Otherwise having an army or even a police force would be unjustified.

quote:

I know Rom. 13 will inevitably come up, and that the higher powers do not bear the sword in vain. Please tell me how far that sword can go? If he actually is to execute wrath against him that doeth evil, then pray tell me what kinds of evil can he use this sword upon?

The ones described in the moral law - capital punishment for murder etc.

I also agree with you here. I think it is only to take revenge on those who have killed someone else. But that almost entirely eliminates the typical warfare scene we are all so used to. Don't we think then that this activity of war is of the devil?

quote:



Does he execute the homosexuals, the witches, and anyone who kindles sticks on the Sabbath day?

Well, those are much more difficult to answer except the Sabbath thing which Christ himself violate in the eyes of the religious leaders of his day because they never understood the difference between the letter of a law and the spirit.

The letter makes no exceptions and is rigid. The spirit means the underlying reason that a law was established in the first place. Ex. The highway speed laws. The letter says no more than x mph. So if the limit is say 60 mph (or 100kph) then if you go 101 you have transgressed. But the spirit says simply, "We cannot allow drivers to go just any speed they wish. We must protect drivers and prevent accidents as much as possible, therefore on major highways lets establish upper and lower limits. The goal is to preserve life and health by providing rules by which we can expect a reasonable speed with minimal risk" etc. See the difference? Thus the spirit of any law is its raison d'être - its reason for existing. If that reason is valid and the bounds described are also reasonable given the current information on traffic and drivers and car abilities etc. one should respect the spirit of that law. But if you feel guilty for have driven for 10 minutes at 105 kph yet in a safe manner you're simply getting bogged down under the letter.

You can reason out all law this way and come to a better understanding of God's moral law.

This is where the phrase comes in that 'he beareth not the sword in vain...he is the minister of God to thee for good to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.' It is the part about 'him that doeth evil' that I think needs to be defined and limited. I realize you said the homosexuals and witches would be more difficult to answer, but somehow it needs to be answered anyway.

I think scripturally the use of the sword can only come into play in order to take revenge on someone who has killed someone else. So from there out there seems to be very little guidance given to rulers as to what the penalties for other crimes would be. For example, if you were the president what kind of law would you pass against the evil of adultery, witchcraft, homosexuality, ect?

We are at our wits end almost to come up with an answer and we are all for 'righteous government,' but alas, we wouldn't know how to do it if the whole of Congress were born again and recognized the Bible as the final authority.

Sodomy laws in some states were so many years in prison. Where did they get 5 years was what it should be instead of 10 years? It is almost totally based on the arbitrary will of men- and saved people would be at the same loss as to what was right as the unbeliever.

Lets say you were the true believing government ruler and you reasoned with the homosexual and tried to lead him to Jesus and be saved. What if he refused? What would you do? Would you lock him up? Would you put him on probation? Would you fine him? Would he be executed?

The same word for evil is manifested in all the works of the flesh. What if someone was a heretic? What if he believed we evolved from monkeys, and that there was no God? We may easily claim that it is not the role of government to deal with these issues, but does it not say godly rulers are to be a terror to evil works and to praise the good? What kind of evil works are these rulers to be a terror to when it plainly says 'evil works?'

I am not trying to push my view mainly because I don't really know what it would be. I think some of the early movements in the reformation presented the view that government was to be ran with God's guidance just like a church or a family was supposed to be, but there are specific instructions about the church and the family where the ones about government seem pretty broad based and hard to understand. I am not saying God's word is inadequate for what is needed, but I would say my understanding sure falls short.


I'm not going to get involved in debating over homos and witches here! You really have to examen the consequences of such on society as a whole - which are never good - before deciding where capital punishment is to be applied in this gospel dispensation.

So you seem to be leaving it open here that it might be OK to kill homos or witches in certain situations based on its consequences on society as a whole. How would you go about examining these consequences on society? You already said it is never good, so it looks as if the consequences has already been 'examined.'

If this is the true criteria that we have to go on, it seems you are saying a righteous government should have been killing them long ago. Am I understanding you that this is the true case or does it have to get much worse before killing them is justified, and if so, where is the point that is becomes justified, and upon what premise would you base your conclusion?

Along those same lines how would you justify death for some of the works of the flesh listed in Galatians and not others? Does adulterers have a negative consequence on society, does extortioners, does fornicators?

quote:

Does he now have God on his side because some other nation does things different than we do?

No, you'd be missing the whole point of law. There is only one law. Law is a unit. It is not a series of arbitrary notions that differ radically from one nation to another in most cases. Nations that traditionally based their law on Judeo/Christian principles tend to have the most "just" laws, while nations based on the Quaran etc. tend to have bad laws (some very bad) in general and often with sanctions or punishments far surpassing the importance of the precepts in question.
Christianity in its 10 commandments and words of Christ based morality is by the far the most just and merciful all at the same time.

Cutting a kids hand off, for example, for stealing is a ridiculously severe punishment.

It cannot be forgotten that certain penalties in the Law of Moses would be considered a 'ridiculously severe punishment' by today's modern carnal man.

There is a movie coming out about women who got stoned for adultery in Iran or somewhere. People have no problem saying how unjust that is as they claim to follow the moral Judeo Christian ethic. Did they forget that part of the 'Judeo Christian ethic' was 'Judeo?'

They have no problem claiming they are an advanced society who abhores these types of abuses while at the same time claiming they follow the moral law of Moses, which is only hypocrisy. There are many statutes Moses wrote to do which would even be included in their 'moral law' category that they don't keep. Was it a cermonial law to kill the witches and the homosexuals or was it a moral law? Was it a cermonial law that a person could not keep anothers wages overnight or was that part of the moral law? Was it ceremonial law to take a rebellious son out of city and stone him or was that part of the moral law?

Instead of taking the stand that Paul preached that if we are married to both Moses and to Jesus then we are in spiritual adultery. We have to be dead to one of them just like he said:

quote:

The woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he liveth. But if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress though she be married to another man.

Wherefore my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ that ye should be married to another, even to him that is raised from the dead...'

See how he is putting it to us? The only way we can be married legitimately to Jesus is to be dead to Moses or else we be in adultery. Moses himself said there would be a time when the Lord would send a prophet and we were to hear him in all things that he said.

So what is the conclusion of this? We take whatever Jesus and the apostles brought over into the New Testament but what they did not bring over remains in the Old Covenant.

For example if I replace a window in a house for a person I take out the old one and I put in a new one. There are differences and there are things that are the same in this example. If the new window is vinyl and the old one was wood, then there is a difference even though they both have glass.

There are laws in the New that says don't steal just like it said don't steal in the Old. But what was not brought over into the new is not part of the new. The Old still says don't kindle sticks on the Sabbath or I am to be put to death. The Old still says stoning for the adulterer and the rebellious son and the daughter who became a whore. Why don't we practice them today? Better yet, why don't the people who claim to be following this 'Judeo Christian Ethic' follow them today?

Their only hope is to reframe the question and put it into a 'moral' or 'ceremonial' category. While the ceremonial element is easy to say why we don't go through all the sacrifices today, and they will gladly tell everyone there is no more obligation, but no real questons can be adressed about why they don't practice the moral law as they claim to. It devolves into a 'letter' and 'sprit' argument which the only way those terms were used in the New Testament is when it compared the letter-the Old Testament -with the spirit -the New Testament.

quote:

Don't we think the other people we are fighting against do not pray sometimes to the very same God, and use the very same scriptures to claim us as their enemy?

Indeed, that happens. And of course it's wrong. Thats usually where "wars of aggression" and selfishness come in.

I am not sure what you mean by 'of course its wrong.' Who is wrong - us or them?

quote:

If there is no scripture defining how the use of this sword is to be used, is it in the hands of men to use as they see fit? How convienient. If I don't like something you said- I'll just use my sword.

You're confusing a legitimate authority's use of the sword under established moral law and in coherence with proper judicial procedure with personal vengeance. A very common mistake these days.

quote:

Put yourself in the position, say of the president- in other words, your the man now. Your a Christian and your going to do it right. How do you know its God's will for you to give the go-ahead for men to go and kill other men who may be just as ignorant about what they are fighting against as the ones you send?

That's question that demands far more detailed information. You can't make a decision on supposing something you want to do is also what God wants to do. Terrible results generally ensue from such presumption. You need true information - not hearsay, you need eye witness accounts, you evidence that your reason for going to war is just and right, you need to plan with many intelligent and knowledgeable counselors etc etc. Your question is thus far too vague.

So it seems from what you are saying here that 'going to war' can be a just thing to do- and we are willing to think that God will just forget about the ones that will without doubt get killed unjustly, and we are also unwilling to think that we would not have become guilty of if we had not made the decision to go to war in the first place. We make the common error that it is necessary to do evil so that good may come of it. We may not apply this kind of thinking in any other area of our life, but we will throw away this principle in a heart beat if it comes to war. Does doing wrong become right in some areas and not in others?.

quote:

And how would you know these 'enemies' are not just as deluded as we are about what is right and wrong?

Delusion over right and wrong comes when one adopts precepts based on personal opinion, selfish concerns, materialist/atheist beliefs and morals (which have no solid foundation) and then going on ones own desires in such decisions. Thats why there are so many unjust wars going on right now in the world. Ideas have consequences.

Here you seem to be again claiming there is such a thing as a just war and yet even within that defintition it is inevitable that unjust things happen. If the can really contains beans (justice) then we can call it a can of beans, but if it is not beans (injustice) lets don't call it a can of beans.

quote:

Do you now have God on your side because some other nation does things different than we do?

No sane leader with authority to make such decisions goes to war because some other nation does things differently. Thats just ludicrous.

quote:

Of course I am applying these things to current wars and our current warmongers, but even in Nazi Germany there can be no excuse for them killing innocent people anymore than when we kill innocent people. Call it 'collateral damage' or what have you, how many people who were just as uninvolved with the war as we are were exterminated in a few seconds at Hiroshima, or Nagasaki?

Well you have an evident angst against unjust killing - so do most of us. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were wrong imo. Again that's war. War is hell. Its almost always confusing and full of human insanities and atrocities.

But we are often poorly informed enough to really know whats going on these days with so much political manipulation in the media. Its hard to get the whole story and all the facts. War is hell. It almost always kills more innocents than guilty. Thats the nature of living with war in a fallen world.

Perfect pacifism is impossible in a fallen world.

I am not endorsing total pacifism. I believe the scripture endorses capitol punishment for killing other people- but to me that seems as far as I can go within scripture.

quote:

How would you like it as your sitting at your computer responding to a post that a foreign country drops a bomb on you and kills your whole family--or while your eating dinner---or while you are out buying food---or while you were washing your clothers.

Irrelevant. How I feel has nothing to do with it. Happens to Israelis everyday, happens to Muslims everyday at the hands of other Muslims, happens every day in many parts of Africa, Indonesia,.... the list is long.
"There shall be wars and rumors of wars" comes to mind. "Race rising against race", "And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall grow cold." "A mans enemies will those of his own house" etc.

quote:

I know the 'just war' theory came into existance with the 'aid' of humans adding what they thought was 'justifiable' and what was not, but again please show scriputure and verse in the New Testament in this dispensation of time.

I hope I've already done so. But if you wish to see the most just war ever you need to look to the Revelation wherein it is written, 17:14 "These 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."
And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him [was] called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. "
And:
19:12 "And the heaven was open; and I saw a white horse, and he who was seated on it was named Certain and True; and he is judging and making war in righteousness.
And his eyes are a flame of fire, and crowns are on his head; and he has a name in writing, of which no man has knowledge but himself.
And he is clothed in a robe washed with blood: and his name is The Word of God.
And the armies which are in heaven went after him on white horses, clothed in delicate linen, white and clean.
And out of his mouth comes a sharp sword, with which he overcomes the nations: and he has rule over them with a rod of iron: and he is crushing with his feet the grapes of the strong wrath of God the Ruler of all.
And on his robe and on his leg is a name, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS."

Yes, I agree this is a just war. Apart from the ones that God himself has initiated and proven in scripture I think we are grasping for straws. There may be right and wrong principles involved in some wars of this modern age, but it doesn't cover the unjustness of killing another person on these types of grounds. That is what makes them unjust. I can't kill another man because he stole my car- but in the 'rule book' of war we can kill the person and take his car too, and demand that someone else pay for the effort to do so.[/b]

So yes there is indeed a righteous form of war, unfortunately sinful man know little of it. And contrary to what war used to be, mostly between armies and not civilians, the 20th century brought warfare right home to mom and dad and the kids and the pets and all. This has been called, I think by General Ludendorff, "total war"; warfare wherein the civilian populations of opposing nations are just as much targeted as the armies themselves.

And of course this is a violation of even international law that warring countries cannot implement 'collective punishment' on civilians, but so what- as far as I am concerned we broke the law just going to war in the first place so whats the difference in breaking a few more?


An atrocious and brutal way of "working out our differences" in 99% of all cases.
The lonely 1% remaining are when nations raise even their young children as soldiers and brutal killers, full of their parents bitter hatreds and violence.
In such cases its hard to imagine any other way. Islamics, for example, are known to sacrifice their own children "for Allah" in front of the TV cameras, or use their own women and children as human shields.

Its a very complex and sad topic and not so simple as you seem to think in some areas.

I think it becomes complex and bewildering when the scriptural restriction on unlawfully killing people is ignored. Sure, there is no guarantee that everyone will be treated right if we follow scripture- just look at Jesus and the apostles- but like you say- if we loose our life for the gospel we didn't really loose it at all- we just gained it. If we look at it through the light of eternity, whatever suffering we may go through down here because of righteousness will be rewarded over there- and the 'rewards' for not doing so is death.

To live is Christ- to die is gain. Blessings to you- its been good to talk with you and God Bless you.

Hope I've adequately answered some of your questions. In all cases God looks at the heart and judges righteously. He also sees more than just this life only.
Peace.

quote:

Thanks for letting me know what my grasp of history is.
I should really set up some sort of folder filled with patronizing comments.
I could call it "The Condescension of Jack."
It would be a real chuckle-fest if read aloud over dinner.

I was actually asking you to compare "civilized" countries of 150 years ago (significantly longer than a decade) with today.

If it was Christianity that was responsible for this, there sure were some slow moving ripples over the preceding 1800 years.

quote:

I wasn't saying He was just for white people.
You talked about consistent correlation being a pointer for causation, in this case arguing that Christianity had led to civilization.
I brought other correlating factors, not arguing for a second that they were causative.
Just as I believe Christianity was not causative of the massive moral sweeps forward over the last 150 years.
But it looks like the point was missed - or ignored.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Thanks for letting me know what my grasp of history is.
I should really set up some sort of folder filled with patronizing comments.
I could call it "The Condescension of Jack."
It would be a real chuckle-fest if read aloud over dinner.

I was actually asking you to compare "civilized" countries of 150 years ago (significantly longer than a decade) with today.

If it was Christianity that was responsible for this, there sure were some slow moving ripples over the preceding 1800 years.

You know, it's not really intended to be condescension, it's really the frustration of dealing with people who make these claims, and then come to the table with very little knowledge or history to back them up. I mean if one is going to reject the predominant belief system that has created and sustained one's culture for millenia, one should at least understand with some degree of knowledge what it is one is actually rejecting and what one is gaining in return. I am frustrated with intellectual laziness and philosophical sloth. If that comes across to you as condescension I apologize; in reality I would rather you actually put a little more thought study into what you say and believe before you express it.

quote:

quote:

I wasn't saying He was just for white people.
You talked about consistent correlation being a pointer for causation, in this case arguing that Christianity had led to civilization.
I brought other correlating factors, not arguing for a second that they were causative.
Just as I believe Christianity was not causative of the massive moral sweeps forward over the last 150 years.
But it looks like the point was missed - or ignored.

No, you ignored instance after instance I presented. All the 'moral sweeps' you claim have their roots in Western Judeo-Christian morality - all of them. None of them came from Atheism or Hinduism, or Islam, whatever the skin color of the people groups involved. So you simply have no rationale behind your claims.

quote:

I was actually asking you to compare "civilized" countries of 150 years ago (significantly longer than a decade) with today.

If it was Christianity that was responsible for this, there sure were some slow moving ripples over the preceding 1800 years

quote:

Again, we disagree.
You want to base them in a Judeo-Christian morality.
That's fine.
I'm not basing them on any faith at all.
Never have.
I'm saying they swept in because of the rejection of faith for faith's sake during the Enlightenment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
Thanks for the history lesson.

quote:

Again, we disagree.
You want to base them in a Judeo-Christian morality.
That's fine.
I'm not basing them on any faith at all.
Never have.
I'm saying they swept in because of the rejection of faith for faith's sake during the Enlightenment.

Well, no you do, you simply are under the delusion that morality magically bubbles up from your digestive tract or something. The fact that you don't know where your own morality comes from though isn't evidence that you aren't basing it on 'any faith at all'; you simply don't know where it came from, so you think you somehow came up with it.