Does God Judge a Nation for it's Leaders or It's People?

a reply to: projectvxn

There's been quite a few rifts in the Christian world due to conscientious objectors. As for divine rule there's a few ways to interpret. One theme is descendants of god's/ demi-gods and I guess another is the "give onto Ceasar" since all powe derives from God anyways in the Abrahamic religions.

In early Christianity their was plenty of adopting of other religions practices, myths and stories. I'm not 100% but I think this includes a bloodline or two that's considered divine. It was common for Christians to adopt religious sites too, Glastonbury Tor comes to mind. If it's a St Michael's church then chances are it's built on an important religious site.

The "lack" of knowledge from those times is probably related to the practices I mention. That said the times of Jesus are hardly the worst documented part of history, I'd argue strongly that it's a controlled history. Archaeology in my eyes alludes to this.

a reply to: Raggedyman

And yet the Bible is replete with examples of resistance to tyranny.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Sookiechacha

You'll get no argument out of me for that. But it isn't as cut and dry as you might imagine. Jesus was a passive resister but even he turned over tables in the temple in a rage for the depravity on display. He even admonishes his disciples to sell their cloaks and arm themselves.

That doesn't mean that there is no duty to resist tyranny in the Bible.

I made my case for that three posts up.

Wow, take the two most extreme examples and blow them out of all proportion, maybe better, make them an everyday action to justify anger

Jesus overthrew the tables, Jesus alone, no help from disciples, Jesus judgement on display because Jesus was and is God. Christians are not God and we are never called to act that way, the disciples never acted that way in the biblical recordings

The sword, Jesus said buy a sword “so he would be numbered with the transgressors” to fulfil prophecy, written clearly in the bible, not to go to war
The sword was also used and took of an ear and then what. Jesus condemned the sword and healed the servant of the high priest

And you, swords or guns?

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Raggedyman

And yet the Bible is replete with examples of resistance to tyranny.

Under the Mosaic covenant
We are no longer under the Mosaic covenant, Jesus taught love
You teach hate

a reply to: Raggedyman

Dude you need to chill out. Your tone is entirely too accusatory. I'm doing no such thing.

I used those examples to illustrate that Jesus was not entirely a pacifist and his acknowledgement of self defense would certainly extend to resistance to tyranny. God certainly seems to get involved in a lot of war in the Bible. Much of Psalm, for instance, is dedicated to prayer for deliverance from the violence of foreigners, to prepare one for war, and to appeal to God for assistance in combat.

originally posted by: ketsuko
Because here you have a thief who freely admits that he and the other man crucified with Christ deserve what they are getting. They are criminals, but he rebukes the first thief telling him to show some fear of God, and asks Jesus to remember him. All he does is show faith, and Jesus answers indicating that he is saved.

Not relevant Kets
I was making it clear there are many Christians who act far worse than many non believers
That many atheists have a superior, less judgemental and self righteous attitude than many who claim Jesus
That was all

a reply to: Raggedyman

I'm not teaching anything. I'm having a discussion.

Your need to fight is embarrassing.

I'm done responding to you. Have a good night.

a reply to: projectvxn

You do know the difference between the Mosaic covenant and the Christian covenant?

Moses is not Jesus
And
I need to calm down? Me, telling christians to go out and love while you are using “swords and tipping tables into the temple to incite christians” into rebellion against an earthly government
You need to calm down pv

a reply to: RAY1990

Something borrowed, always blue.


Im going to bow out on this one because I like the posters in here and don't wish to disrupt.

Just let God be the leader of your country.
If he doesn't get back to you, you will know exactly how he feels

originally posted by: ketsuko

Again, it's not about doing good stuff; it's about being forgiven when you screw up.

You can do good things, but the standard you'll be judged against is perfection. If you accept God, accept Christ, then the recognition stands that you are sincerely trying to walk God's way; thus you have forgiveness when you screw up. You may be reconciled to God the Father in your error.

Without that reconciliation with God the Father, then you must prove that you can indeed walk the walk alone and be perfect.

The other side of the equation is if you listen to yourself going on and on about how much good works people who aren't Christian do, you start to sound like they are buying themselves into Heaven. Like they are setting up such a store of good works that they can outweigh a leger of sins.

I'm not saying I'm a good person, BUT if/when I do feel like doing something nice for someone, that doesn't mean I'm expecting something in return. (either in this world or in some other magical fantasy dimension)



If I shovel snow off the neighborlady's sidewalk, it's simply because I'm pretty sure she can't do it, but I can.

You're starting to sound like you think that would be a completely pointless act.

The reason has absolutely nothing to do with me.

originally posted by: 19Bones79

Im going to bow out on this one because I like the posters in here and don't wish to disrupt.

That's a pretty good idea. I think I'll join you.

"To govern is to choose". One casts a vote for someone else to allow that other person (moral or physical) to govern, that is the voter chooses a third party who thereby gets the exclusive ability to choose i.e., to decide.

Doesn't this sound strange? The voter, by his ballot, says "I decide that this fellow, who happens not to be me, is the one deciding" in other words "I decide not to decide".

By voting, one contradicts himself (deciding that he is not deciding), and should therefore not be expected to be making a rational choice, whomever he votes for.

Hence the unending disappointment of the voters, the betrayal of the elected.

www.youtube.com...