Is Your Church Caesar?

I was quite upset when I read this story: Christians United for War

On December 10th a group calling itself the Christian Leaders for a Nuclear-Free Iran sent a letter to both political parties’ leaders in Congress as well as to the chairman and ranking member of the House Foreign Relations committee. The letter, beginning "We write today as Christian leaders," preceded a December 15th vote in the House of Representatives in which 412 house members approved the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act of 2009, with only twelve votes opposed. The sanctions proposed by the House of Representatives and endorsed by the Christian leadership have correctly been seen by many as amounting to an act of war.
. . . Land, who appears to be the driving force behind the letter, is president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention.

What disturbs me most is that I have extended family members who give money to a Southern Baptist Church, and I'm sure they had no intention for their money to be used for lobbying efforts for acts of war. Were the congregants told where part of their offerings would go? Were they asked if they wanted to fund war efforts? The answer is no, and yet the letter to congress claims it speaks for 'millions of Christians'. Isn't this misrepresentation?

To Christians who give money to churches and religious organizations which engage in such activities, I recomend boycotting the offering plate. Here's why, you will be held accountable for how this money is used. "Oh", but you may say, "if I cut the church off then all the good things it does will suffer."

My response is this: You were told to give to Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's. You already pay taxes to a government that uses some for good and some for bad, if your money to the Church goes some for good some for bad then aren't you proving that your Church is another Caesar? Indeed you are.

So, I say again, don't put a single penny in that plate unless you know with complete confidence that it's going to what you consider God's work. You are accountable.

When in doubt give directly to the poor. Look up tithing as it existed originally. It was a party, including drink, to which the poor were invited.



[edit on 24-12-2009 by pthena]

There's an interesting article on Land in Wikipedia. To quote part of it:

He was the primary author of the Land letter, an open letter sent to President George W. Bush by leaders of the religious right in October 2002 which outlined a "just war" argument in support of the subsequent military invasion of Iraq.

My suggestion would be to not contribute to personality driven radio and television religious shows.
Fighting wars for the sake of Israel is amazingly foolish and the county should not be supported since it is run by forces unfriendly to the truly religious, of any religion.
Some people, such as John Hagee, who has long claimed to be a christian, have as good as renounced Jesus, in favor of supporting some strange idea of a resurgent eschatological Israel that only exists in their demented minds.
Jesus never advocated going to war to promote religion. Armageddon is the war of God that He will fight with heavenly forces, not an army of human soldiers. That is reserved for the Satanic forces, which we have no part in as true believers.

That is disturbing! I am pretty dang sure my church doesn't donate to anything like that.

A church lobbying for war due to petroleum seems like a sad intermingling of church, state, and greed. And the worst of all three.

Giving tithe's is a scam period !!

god's money my azz, its a money racket, a way to help pay for what god see's fit, .... such as the pastor's house and car payment.

wake up people, wake up.

I once belonged to a church, where a member was kicked out when it was discovered that he was giving his 10% tithe money to help starving kid's in africa, .... apparently the pastor thought this was misuse of " gods" money , and that it should go to him. so he was escorted out in from of the entire congregation as an example.

faith should never be paid for !! period !

reply to post by MadameGuillotine
It's fairly hard to tell, unless you sit on the congregation's finance board. The main trouble comes from the congregation sending money to a central denomination which in turn allocates to an office with a title like "Regious Liberty Commission". Of course we're all in favor of religious liberty. But I doubt military embargoes and blockades of goods qualifies as religious liberty.

reply to post by jmdewey60

There's an interesting article on Land in Wikipedia. To quote part of it:
He was the primary author of the Land letter, an open letter sent to President George W. Bush by leaders of the religious right in October 2002 which outlined a "just war" argument in support of the subsequent military invasion of Iraq.

There's a lot of irony about some groups boasting that they had no participation in council of Nicea, therefore exempt from being part of Papal system, because they then adopt all the same beliefs of the creeds and also support and somewhat control policy in a present day empire. Is that an image to the very Papacy many of them openly call anti-christ?

That's probably more contentious than I wanted to be, but still, people should at least consider the implications. And not all churches make those claims about themselves or the Papacy either.



[edit on 26-12-2009 by pthena]

reply to post by pthena


--its ok brother--dont let the supposed christians make you think they are the real church--jesus warned us about organized so called christians--the fact they side with war should tell you that---most are corrupt----tell your family members they should give locally to the needy-thats what jesus said to do--your relatives should not feed the fire---remember jesus said whenever 2 or more study togather it is a church-----

reply to post by jmdewey60


listen to this man--

reply to post by itsawild1
Yes, you are correct. The last position I held in a Christian church was finance officer. That was just prior to Iraq invasion. Song of the day was "Onward Christian Soldier" and communion was in the name of Bush.

Needless to say I'm not even a member there, having quickly resigned and quit . I'm quite uncomfortable in any group since then.

The only money our congregation sent out, other than local, was to the Southern Baptist Convention for bulletin covers, but those came with flyers from Dobson's group which also is involved in war politics.

[edit on 26-12-2009 by pthena]

Well, I have no paid pastor or teachers, every calling is free given service. I know my tithes go to upkeep of my church, missionary work, and congregational programs, such as youth groups.

The rest of my contributions go to places like here
www.ldsphilanthropies.org...

I couldn't imagine my Church encouraging a war of any kind, let alone one for profit.

I wold think you would have the right to question your pastor as to where your tithes are going. To an extent, anyway. Asking him if he really needed a car if he could use a bus would be more than a bit impolite. But asking if it is contributing to something you believe in or don't believe in should be allowed!

reply to post by MadameGuillotine
I think the only way to tell with LDS is to look up LDS President statements
to US government, and what's being lobbied. I haven't looked those up for a few years.

From what I understand, the LDS belief is that New Jerusalem is to be on North American Continent. There's always the danger that present day nationalism could creep into present teaching and policy.

You start off as separate from the beast church, don't become a beast. That's just a warning, the possibility exists. Pray it doesn't happen.

These signed the letter, taken from the letter itself

www.clnfi.org...

Dr. Pat Robertson, President of Christian Broadcasting Network
Chuck Colson
Richard Land, President of Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, Southern Baptist Convention
Tom Minnery, Senior Vice President of Government and Public Policy at Focus on the Family
Dr. John Hagee, Cornerstone Church, San Antonio, Texas
Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America
Colin A. Hanna, President of Let Freedom Ring
Michael Little, President of Christian Broadcasting Network
Anthony Verdugo, Founder and Executive Director of Christian Family Coalition
C. Preston Noell, III, President of Tradition, Family, Property, Inc.
Micah Clark, Executive Director of American Family Association of Indiana
Michael Novak, Author, Scholar and awarded 1994 Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion
Matthew Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel
Dr. Benny Tate, Senior Pastor, Rock Springs Church, Milner, GA
Jack Rohrer, President of Virginia Faith and Freedom Coalition
Robert E. Reccord, President of Total Life Impact Ministries
Ron Shuping, Executive VP of Programming, The Inspiration Networks
William A. Donohue, President of The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights
Ronald J. Rychlak, MDLA Professor of Law, University of Mississippi, School of Law
Diana L. Banister, Vice President and Partner of Shirley & Banister Public Affairs
Deal Hudson, Executive Director of Catholic Advocate
Mark A. Smith, President of Ohio Christian University
Dr. Richard Lee, President of There’s Hope America
Jack Whelan, Chairman of Culture of Life Foundation
Peter Huessy, President of GeoStrategic Analysis of Potomac, Maryland
Bobby Eberle, President of GOPUSA
Bud Hansen, Papal Foundation
Jeffrey Karls, President of Magdalen College
David R. Carlin, Professor of Sociology and Philosophy at the Community College of Rhode Island
Al Kresta President and CEO, Ave Maria Radio Host, “Kresta in the Afternoon”
Cortes E. DeRussy, Bronxville, NY, Former Board Chair, Crisis Magazine
Dr. James Merritt, Senior Pastor, Cross Pointe Church, Duluth, GA
Rev. Louis P. Sheldon, Chairman of Traditional Values Coalition
Jordan Sekulow, Director of International Operations at American Center for Law and Justice
Gary L. Bauer, President of American Values
Jim Martin, 60-Plus
Judge Paul Pressler, Southern Baptist Convention, Houston, Texas

reply to post by jmdewey60
I looked up John Hagee on Wikipedia and was astounded:

en.wikipedia.org...
Despite Hagee's professed "Christian Zionist" beliefs and public support for the state of Israel, Hagee has made statements that some have interpreted as antisemitic, including blaming the Holocaust on Jews, stating that Adolf Hitler carried out a divine plan to lead Jews to form the modern state of Israel, calling liberal Jews "poisoned" and "spiritually blind," and stating that the preemptive nuclear attack on Iran that he favors will lead to the deaths of most Jews in Israel.

The whole article is quite a read. Basically his beliefs are summed up:
the Holocaust was God's will to punish the Jews for not returning to the land of "Israel", it's every Christian's duty to get all Jews to Israel, then nuke Iran so that all the Jews will get killed in the resulting war.

He and many co-signers of this letter publicly criticize each other and then sign the letter together.

Consider the prophet Jonah. He didn't want to go to Nineveh and prophesy that the city would be destroyed, because they might repent and his prophecy would fail, embarrassing him.

JNH 4:10 But the LORD said, "You have been concerned about this vine, though you did not tend it or make it grow. It sprang up overnight and died overnight. 11 But Nineveh has more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who cannot tell their right hand from their left, and many cattle as well. Should I not be concerned about that great city?"

Imagine if Jonah had said to himself, "I will tell the city they will be destroyed, then hire false prophets to discredit me, so that no one repents, then I will have done my duty of warning and been correct when the city is destroyed."

Just such a man is John Hagee. Any one who supports this man or any of his buddies is in no better shape than would Jonah have been if he'd pulled such a stunt. And everyone signing this letter is a chum of his no matter how publicly they 'disagree with his teaching'.

In my opinion if you have any fear of God and care for humanity, then you would abandon membership in any group that has any connection with this whatsoever. Reexamine what it means to fear God and love your neighbor.

Time's running out, and these people are shoving the sand through the hour glass just as fast as they can.



[edit on 28-12-2009 by pthena]

The root of evil for Christianity is Paul. As long as the words of Paul are passed off as the word of god, then you can expect these kinds of things to continue. It is where they get their so called "Justification".

I haven't even read the justifications, but I'd be willing to bet that in those justifications it quotes Paul and parts of the OT over and over.

That people are able to see the Catholic Church as anti-christ but are unable to see they carry on those teachings and traditions of the catholic church only goes to point out their own outward focus. Unable to see their own evil.

This is also true when making the case for war. They will always focus on the evils of the other side, but never acknowledge or see their own evil actions. If however, they would put themselves on the other side, then they would be able to see it. How would you feel if another country decided to start bombing us and taking us over because they didn't like GWB or Obama? When you see it from the other side, then you can see the true evils being done, and you can then fix it on your own side first by not doing it, and then also show the other side how to fix their evils.

Anyone wanna bet that part of those justifications for war didn't include "Blessed are the peacemakers"?

The entire situation is described basically exactly in Matthew 7.

Starts out talking about people who only look at the others evils and how they become hypocrites. Goes on to talk about how those who do things in the name of Jesus are not actually of Jesus. And that the way you can tell is by their fruits(actions).

Christianity is the religion of Paul, not Jesus. And as long as that continues, Christianity will continue to be the anti-christ religion. Non-Catholic Christians broke away from the Catholic church because they knew the evils of that church. But then they also carried the basis for that church with them when they kept the writings of Paul. They were unable to see the real source of behind the power of the church.

Jesus basically taught separation of church and state in his actions. He refused to become the political king the Jews of the time wanted. They were looking for a messiah to come up and lead them to war/conquest.

However, what we see with Paul is that he appeals to the authority of this world, and it is from that which we get the power of the church, the mixture of church and state into 1. Exactly what these kinds of things leading to "just war" do, and exactly what those kinds of people want.

Personally, it somewhat amazes me how Christians can praise and make all the big fuss about Jesus, but then when it comes down to it, they basically ignore him completely and the extent of their praise is simply as him being their whipping boy.

Not to mention the number of people who see the evil in both and just reject god completely and so forth. All most people know of Jesus is what the people who praise him all the time do, and when they look at that all they see are people who are hypocrites adn want to kill/persecute anyone who isn't like them.

Disgusting IMO.

reply to post by badmedia

This is also true when making the case for war. They will always focus on the evils of the other side, but never acknowledge or see their own evil actions. If however, they would put themselves on the other side, then they would be able to see it. How would you feel if another country decided to start bombing us and taking us over because they didn't like GWB or Obama? When you see it from the other side, then you can see the true evils being done, and you can then fix it on your own side first by not doing it, and then also show the other side how to fix their evils.

I just heard an interesting discussion on 'To the Point' on NPR concerning the present popular protests in Iran. It's understood that the leadership is divided. The question then is: should the US have harsher sanctions or not? Some say yes, some say no. Harsher sanctions will strengthen the opposition to the west. Continued dialogue strengthens the position of those wanting to be open to the west. No one bothered to mention that the only reason Iran is not open already is that the US is leading in cutting them off in the first place.

So yes, by all means, the US should question their own motives. Do we the people want war with Iran or do we want peace? Shouldn't peace be sought through normalizing relations? Seems glaringly obvious to me. The present course of denying Iran's rights under Non-Proliferation Treaty, and then sanctioning and cutting off can only lead to war. The US was cutting off Iran already even before the issue of nuclear power even came up. The US is currently using the nuclear issue as an excuse to continue already in place sanctions.

The root of evil for Christianity is Paul. As long as the words of Paul are passed off as the word of god, then you can expect these kinds of things to continue. It is where they get their so called "Justification".

You're going to have to offer some evidence for this assertion. As far as I know Paul was killed in Rome by the Romans by order of Nero (AD 60-67). Persecutions of Jews and Christians continued until Constantine's Edict of Milan in 313, reversed persecution of his predecessor, Diocletian and proclaimed religious toleration throughout the empire.

Eventually Christian Orthodoxy became the empire religion, others were then persecuted. Augustine of Hippo (November 13, 354 - August 28, 430) was the one who came up with odd concepts of the kingdom of God and came up with "just war" doctrine. He was pretty far removed from Paul.

Show some evidence that Paul somehow taught the merging of church and state, or that he in any way taught a 'just war' concept.

Personally, it somewhat amazes me how Christians can praise and make all the big fuss about Jesus, but then when it comes down to it, they basically ignore him completely and the extent of their praise is simply as him being their whipping boy.

Not to mention the number of people who see the evil in both and just reject god completely and so forth. All most people know of Jesus is what the people who praise him all the time do, and when they look at that all they see are people who are hypocrites adn want to kill/persecute anyone who isn't like them.

Disgusting IMO.

This deserves repeating, therefore I quote you. Yes, many people find it disgusting.




[edit on 30-12-2009 by pthena]

Originally posted by pthena
You're going to have to offer some evidence for this assertion. As far as I know Paul was killed in Rome by the Romans by order of Nero (AD 60-67). Persecutions of Jews and Christians continued until Constantine's Edict of Milan in 313, reversed persecution of his predecessor, Diocletian and proclaimed religious toleration throughout the empire.

Eventually Christian Orthodoxy became the empire religion, others were then persecuted. Augustine of Hippo (November 13, 354 - August 28, 430) was the one who came up with odd concepts of the kingdom of God and came up with "just war" doctrine. He was pretty far removed from Paul.

Show some evidence that Paul somehow taught the merging of church and state, or that he in any way taught a 'just war' concept.

Well, it's the book of Romans in large part. That is where he makes his appeal to the Romans and the authority of this world. Such as submission to all authority and so forth, which is a perversion of what Jesus did. Jesus did not submit and obey the authority of this world, he just didn't fight back with evil.

Paul setups up an authority of men on earth - false teachers etc(The authority the church then claims).

This as well as the blood sacrifice ritual that is taught which tells men that Jesus did it so they don't have too. Jesus as their whipping boy. This blinds people that they must walk the path and so forth, so they do not know.

These are what enables the rest. Paul contridicts Jesus many times on things. I remember I seen a preview for a John Wayne movie, and in the preview it had a woman in it who quoted Jesus(in terms of peace), and then John Wayne in his "Gonna kill the bad guys" Cowboy manhood quotes Paul, and tells her a woman the effect of shut up, she has no right to question him.

Anytime a person speaks of Peace and oneness with the father and things of a spiritual nature, it's Jesus and such the will quote. However, when someone wants to justify and speak against these things, it will be Paul they quote.

Also, Jesus warns of that which will come after him.

John 14

29And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe.

30Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.

And it just so happens that Paul/Church is the only thing that comes after him. Paul was of course not one of the 12 disciples, and was a self claimed/appointed disciple/apostle.

Which of course might be overlooked if not for the big contradictions and things Paul enables(the path of death and destruction).

If Paul is directly to blame I don't know. They are just letters he wrote, and probably only a small portion of them. He might have been in a time of early learning, trying to understand/express things and so forth. He may have seen an error, or would have liked to have said a few things differently if he had known how they would be percieved/used. So, all we can really say is "What is attributed to Paul". Or the picture the bible itself gives based on those writings.

But they should not be passed off as the word of god and on the same level as Jesus. And most certainly when Paul contradicts Jesus, we should not put more weight into the words of Paul over the words of Jesus.

reply to post by badmedia

I will attempt to go from general to specific.

If Paul is directly to blame I don't know. They are just letters he wrote, and probably only a small portion of them. He might have been in a time of early learning, trying to understand/express things and so forth. He may have seen an error, or would have liked to have said a few things differently if he had known how they would be percieved/used. So, all we can really say is "What is attributed to Paul". Or the picture the bible itself gives based on those writings.

But they should not be passed off as the word of god and on the same level as Jesus. And most certainly when Paul contradicts Jesus, we should not put more weight into the words of Paul over the words of Jesus.

It's obvious to you and to me that the Bible as a whole should not be considered as 'The Word of God'. Not everyone has that understanding yet, and I was hoping to pull away from their present false leaders those who have eyes to see and minds to understand. We take the words of Jesus as recorded as authoritative because we feel that the Gospels were based upon a collection of sayings of his. When we read them they speak directly to us. The word of God is God speaking to us through what we read and hear. The word of God then is not ink and paper and a leather cover.

The works of Paul are the works of Paul, as such they are the best evidence we have that no piece of paper is God's word, for it is evident that Paul's works have much of Paul in them, as a man with ego and less than complete understanding. If you discard Paul because of his imperfection of writing then you can discard me also for the same reason. If we all discard each other, then who will be left to seek out truth?

Well, it's the book of Romans in large part. That is where he makes his appeal to the Romans and the authority of this world. Such as submission to all authority and so forth, which is a perversion of what Jesus did. Jesus did not submit and obey the authority of this world, he just didn't fight back with evil.

His appeal was to the people living in Rome in his time, just as my appeal in the present thread is to people living in my time. Am I speaking to the power motivating war? No, for that spirit of division and war does not listen or change. So it is to people I write and speak.

As for submission to earthly authority compare Romans 13:1-6 with the sayings of Jesus in MT 22:17-21, MT 23:1-4. It is true that even Hitler appealed to Romans 13 to rally Christians to obey the call to pick up arms on behalf of his would be empire, but that was Hitler's misuse and not Paul's. Christians under persecution by the Roman empire used this same verse to defend their right to continue alive instead of being killed, by saying, "look, we are not setting up a separate competing rulership, we will obey every law you pass that promotes civil order and peace with all men."

These are what enables the rest. Paul contridicts Jesus many times on things. I remember I seen a preview for a John Wayne movie, and in the preview it had a woman in it who quoted Jesus(in terms of peace), and then John Wayne in his "Gonna kill the bad guys" Cowboy manhood quotes Paul, and tells her a woman the effect of shut up, she has no right to question him.

Paul wrote somewhere that women should remain silent in church and leave church-talk to men and keep their speaking to their own men at home. Although Paul did not live in a time as open as we have today, he was ahead of his contemporaries in this respect.

Back in the old days, when I was 18, and a member of an off-shoot of a Christian sect, I with three others challenged the teaching of the sect leader. A meeting was called to settle the dispute. Although I was one of the leaders of the dispute I was not allowed behind the closed doors where the yelling took place. I was left outside where the women were. I saw and heard with my own eyes and ears how a woman instructs her husband about what is important. I'm sure what the woman had to say to her husband, which I overheard, was of more real value than what was happening behind the door.

This as well as the blood sacrifice ritual that is taught which tells men that Jesus did it so they don't have too. Jesus as their whipping boy. This blinds people that they must walk the path and so forth, so they do not know.

I'm as uncomfortable with this as you are. It's the main reason I'm not a Christian. Paul is not the one who came up with this idea though. When I read Paul it seems to me that he's repeating something he heard some one else say. He doesn't present any argument convincing to me which would lead to this conclusion.

I used to be a Christian. I was only cast out by one sect, but I've left many. The point of my thread is that people should not fear leaving groups and organizations, you are not cut off from Christ that way. Sometimes in order to follow Jesus you must follow him alone.

HEB 13:11 The high priest carries the blood of animals into the Most Holy Place as a sin offering, but the bodies are burned outside the camp. 12 And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood. 13 Let us, then, go to him outside the camp, bearing the disgrace he bore. 14 For here we do not have an enduring city, but we are looking for the city that is to come.

From a follower, not Paul.

Another example of people talking about topics without passing judgement on others. Nice to see an LDS person chime in too.

In any case, here is an example from my younger days:

When I was about 14 or 15, I was reading Acts and found some discrepancies between when Paul recounts his trip to damascus.

Acts 9:7 - the men with him heard a voice but saw nothing
Acts 22:9 - the men with him saw something, but heard no voice

I asked a friend, who was also bright, why the contradiction? He spouted off something, which I forget, and got very angry. I asked my youth group leader and he had the same response. Both were very upset, and most likely that anyone would have found a contradiction to be dealt with.

As I looked for the passages I found MORE!

Acts 9:6 - I'll tell you what to do when you get there
Acts 26:15-18 - Here's what you'll do!

Acts 9:7 - everyone stood speechless!
Acts 26:14 - everyone fell to the ground!

Thankfully, those romans loved paul so much, they they credited his 'book' with being truthful. In court, I do believe, if a witness gives testimony that directly contradicts his previous testimony, isn't ALL the testimony thrown out?

And who's statue in rome was replaced by a statue of "St. Paul"?

Originally posted by pthena
If we all discard each other, then who will be left to seek out truth?

The father/god.

No man can be trusted. Not me, not you, not any man. And this is regardless of the persons intentions or whatever. No man can be trusted or should be accepted as authority.

What you are talking about there is putting your faith in men, rather than faith in god.

Proverbs 8

17 I love them that love me; and those that seek me early shall find me.

18Riches and honour are with me; yea, durable riches and righteousness.

19My fruit is better than gold, yea, than fine gold; and my revenue than choice silver.

20I lead in the way of righteousness, in the midst of the paths of judgment:

21 That I may cause those that love me to inherit substance; and I will fill their treasures.

Jesus describes this experience also in John 14. John 14:20 is when you meet/find the father, 24-26 is when the treasures are filled with that which is rich in the eyes of the father - wisdom and understanding.

Knowledge of the holy is understanding(proverbs 9). Math is another example of something that is understanding. We express the math with symbols/numbers, 1+1=2, but the expression itself is not the actual understanding.

This is also true for knowledge of the holy. The bible(where true) is simply 1 expression of the understanding. But if one does not have the understanding, then it's like showing 1+1=2 to a man who doesn't understand math. At best he can accept it as authority and repeat it - aka modern Christianity and Paul.

So, for those with understanding see true and false things in the bible should be no different than taking a math test. How do you know which of the follow math expressions are true?

4+3=7
4+5=12
4+5=9
34+99=943

Only based on understanding.

The reason I know Jesus is true and Paul is not is because I see true expressions from Jesus, but I do not see that in Paul. In John 10 Jesus says to those who question him - if he does not do the will of the father, then believe him not. But if he does, then believe him. Well I can see he does the will of the father, and I know where the understanding he speaks of comes from. Thus I know he is legit.

When you have the understanding, then it applies to all things around you. You're entire perspective of things will change, although the physical does not.

Understanding can only come from the father, men can not give it to each other. We are reduced to only being able to express things, thus the bible and other texts like it are examples of that expressions. They help in the manner that they are like a common language of terms, because when you receive the understanding itself, it is pure and without labels.

Paul lacks this.

His appeal was to the people living in Rome in his time, just as my appeal in the present thread is to people living in my time. Am I speaking to the power motivating war? No, for that spirit of division and war does not listen or change. So it is to people I write and speak.

As for submission to earthly authority compare Romans 13:1-6 with the sayings of Jesus in MT 22:17-21, MT 23:1-4. It is true that even Hitler appealed to Romans 13 to rally Christians to obey the call to pick up arms on behalf of his would be empire, but that was Hitler's misuse and not Paul's. Christians under persecution by the Roman empire used this same verse to defend their right to continue alive instead of being killed, by saying, "look, we are not setting up a separate competing rulership, we will obey every law you pass that promotes civil order and peace with all men."

But in trying to save yourself, you actually lose yourself. To try and save yourself in such a manner is the path that seems right, but isn't. It is actually the path of death and destruction, and the saving of self is only used to justify the actions.

Yes this is difficult to see and understand, but it is the truth. It is why Jesus did what he did in terms of his death - to show people that. Do not fear that which can kill the body, but that which can kill the soul.

As for Caesar and give unto Caesar. What is it that Caesar desired? Material things. In Proverbs 8, it says knowledge and wisdom are more valueable tha choice gold. Thus, it is nothing to give Caesar that which he desires(material of this world). So it is wise to give what Caesar wants and be on your way.

But that is a far step from doing something like joining an army for a crusade and so forth. And when it is more than tribute that Caesar wants, such as the crusades and such - then you best realize what your true authority is.

Jesus doesn't fight back because the only way to fight back in such a way was to kill and break a commandment and sin.

See, fear over saving the body is the #1 tactic of deception and means of getting people to walk the path of death and destruction. 9/11 is the most recent example of what people in mass will do if you make them fear for their lives. Whatever one may believe about the event itself, it is undeniable that the consequences of what a people who feared for their lives did in attempts to save themselves. Because they have committed sin to do so, they are actually losing themselves.

But when someone is born of the spirit and knows the father and knows that death is not real, then there is no reason for them to commit sin. There is no reason to try and "save your life". What are you afraid of? It's not death I fear by any stretch, but that part before it isn't as easy.

Again, these are all quite different than what Paul says in his submission to worldly authority. There is no reason for them to fear those who really follow Jesus in terms of violence. However, that is not the reason they are persecuted. They are persecuted because they would lose their power if such people spread. Who is going to fight their wars and so forth?

Same reason Jesus was killed.

Paul wrote somewhere that women should remain silent in church and leave church-talk to men and keep their speaking to their own men at home. Although Paul did not live in a time as open as we have today, he was ahead of his contemporaries in this respect.

But women have equal say in things. Ahead of his time? I dunno, I mean if you look in history, women were in cases rulers of nations. Cleopatra for example. It is still to put yourself over another, and that is wrong.

I think your example would prove why they should be able to speak equally. I can see a man telling his wife not to speak, or a man telling his wife to ask him questions and so forth, and even vice versa(if the man is like george wanting to play with the rabbits). But to say no woman can speak in church is IMO absurd.

HEB 13:11 The high priest carries the blood of animals into the Most Holy Place as a sin offering, but the bodies are burned outside the camp. 12 And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood. 13 Let us, then, go to him outside the camp, bearing the disgrace he bore. 14 For here we do not have an enduring city, but we are looking for the city that is to come.

From a follower, not Paul.

From Jesus:

Matthew 9

10And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples.

11And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?

12But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.

13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

He is quoting Hosea 6.

5Therefore have I hewed them by the prophets; I have slain them by the words of my mouth: and thy judgments are as the light that goeth forth.

6For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.

7But they like men have transgressed the covenant: there have they dealt treacherously against me.

8Gilead is a city of them that work iniquity, and is polluted with blood.

Recommend that entire chapter in context, as it is dealing with what we are talking. I only quoted part of it for space.

Christianity was co-opted by the Roman Empire in the third century.

The council of Nicaea dictated what would be in the bible, what would be left out and on which days Jesus was born and died.

So, yes Christianity = roman empire/Caesar.