FOX Lies!! Barack Obama Pastor Wright

[Sam]

Sister, I don't have anything against that being our national anthem. I just thing it's dumb to sing and hold our hands over our heart while reciting the poa. I don't care if others do it. I just don't want to.

Hey, you are entitled to your opinion.

In my opinion, The Star Spangled Banner is a difficult song to sing but it is our "national anthem" so I will stand and place my hand over my heart and struggle through the words and tune.

We were taught the "Pledge of Allegiance" as long ago as I can remember in my early years in school. Later it was modified to add the words "under God" and I some times have difficulty knowing where they fit in. In my opinion, the flag, whether made in China or wherever, is a symbol of our country. I have no problem standing, placing my hand over my heart and reciting the Pledge. We pledge to the flag as a symbol but also to "the republic for which it stands."

I do thank God for this country and that He in His grace and mercy allowed me to be born here and not somewhere else. Some of my ancestors (American Indians) were done wrong, slaughtered, and killed. Others (Irish) were strongly discriminated against. I still think the date of Custer's defeat at the Battle of the Big Horn is a great cause for celebration and I used to "boo" when as a child I heard the bugle sounding a charge and the calvary came over the hill to defeat the Indians.

This country gives Jehovah's Witnesses the freedom to refrain from participating in the Pledge because they look at it the same way early Christians looked upon offering a pinch of incense and saying "Caesar is Lord."

[Rico]

Lawdamercy!!
Miss Brattified is killin' em!!

Beating 'em down, even with one half of her brain tied behind her back, just to make it fair!
:boxing:boxing

If you have a problem with me thinking it's dumb to sing that song and say the poa with my hand held over my heart, then it's your problem, not mine. It's not going to change my mind.

[MissBrattified]

I hear what you're saying, but to each his own.

Of course you have the freedom to not partake in those traditions.

However, I would think that a man running for President of the United States of America would make sure he had all his traditional American ducks in a row. It shows that he is either too numb-skulled to realize how many people care about the "little things", or he is deliberately stating that the little things are unimportant to him.

[Rico]

Of course you have the freedom to not partake in those traditions.

However, I would think that a man running for President of the United States of America would make sure he had all his traditional American ducks in a row. It shows that he is either too numb-skulled to realize how many people care about the "little things", or he is deliberately stating that the little things are unimportant to him.

What if he doesn't like apple pie? That's an American tradition. Is he being unpatriotic by not eating it? The whole point is that singing the na and reciting the poa with hand held over one's heart no more makes anyone patriotic than someone not doing it makes them unpatriotic.

[CC1]

I know a lot of kids who think its dumb to say "please" when they ask for the potatoes at the dinner table. But etiquette and manners and traditions are important--to me, anyway. :) (And our children will be taught the same things we hold dear.)

Good post Miss Brattperson.

It is this kind of lack of respect for ones country, it's history, and all those who sacrificed to make it (despite all of it's flaws) the best place on earth that is part of what is wrong with our country today.

Kids are raised hearing everything in their life torn down verbally from their pastor, church to their country. No wonder things are like they are.

[MissBrattified]

What if he doesn't like apple pie? That's an American tradition. Is he being unpatriotic by not eating it? The whole point is that singing the na and reciting the poa with hand held over one's heart no more makes anyone patriotic than someone not doing it makes them unpatriotic.

YES!!!! :D

I disagree.

And if he is served apple pie ala mode, he should eat it thankfully and pretend to like it even if he doesn't. And thank the cook. That's just being polite.

What he does at his own dinner table is his business, but what he does in public is everyone's bizness. Being critiqued and analyzed is par for the course. Politicians know that--or at least, their advisers do. So there's no room for a slip up.

Speaking of banana peels....Hillary Clinton's slip up about the sniper fire in Bosnia--now that ought to be a whole new thread. LOL!!! That was just plain old FUNNY. How could she NOT know there would be a record of that event which would reveal her exaggeration *cough* lie????? :ursofunny

[Sam]

a good story about an American flag made in Viet Nam can be found at:
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/soapbox/mccain.asp

[TRFrance]

If you have a problem with me thinking it's dumb to sing that song and say the poa with my hand held over my heart, then it's your problem, not mine. It's not going to change my mind.
Gee.Sensitive aren't we?
Nobody's trying to change your mind, bro. Do your thing.

You're free to express your feelings, and we're free to express if we agree or disagree.
That's all.

LOL!!!

What do you think about Project Chaos? :D
I think it's pretty ingenious actually.I think Obama will still end up with the nomination but Project Chaos will just make it a more difficult process... which is good for the conservative side.

Project Chaos may end up damaging Obama enough to help McCain win in November... a thought that seemed almost unthinkable 6-12 months ago.

[Sam]

...
Speaking of banana peels....Hillary Clinton's slip up about the sniper fire in Bosnia--now that ought to be a whole new thread. LOL!!! That was just plain old FUNNY. How could she NOT know there would be a record of that event which would reveal her exaggeration *cough* lie????? :ursofunny

That's just a small part of her revisionist history (lies) about her political accomplishments.

[Rico]

YES!!!! :D

I disagree.

And if he is served apple pie ala mode, he should eat it thankfully and pretend to like it even if he doesn't. And thank the cook. That's just being polite.

What he does at his own dinner table is his business, but what he does in public is everyone's bizness. Being critiqued and analyzed is par for the course. Politicians know that--or at least, their advisers do. So there's no room for a slip up.

Speaking of banana peels....Hillary Clinton's slip up about the sniper fire in Bosnia--now that ought to be a whole new thread. LOL!!! That was just plain old FUNNY. How could she NOT know there would be a record of that event which would reveal her exaggeration *cough* lie????? :ursofunny

:D This is what I like about yakkin with you Sister. We can disagree and still be cool with each other. As usual, you made good points but haven't convinced me to change my evil ways! :D BTW, I already started a thread about Clinton's "misstatement" (lie in any one else's book).

[MissBrattified]

a good story about an American flag made in Viet Nam can be found at:
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/soapbox/mccain.asp

Wonderful story, Sam. Thank you for sharing that. :tissue

[MissBrattified]

:D This is what I like about yakkin with you Sister. We can disagree and still be cool with each other. As usual, you made good points but haven't convinced me to change my evil ways! :D BTW, I already started a thread about Clinton's "misstatement" (lie in any one else's book).

Yes, I just found it! :)

[TRFrance]

Speaking of banana peels....Hillary Clinton's slip up about the sniper fire in Bosnia--now that ought to be a whole new thread. LOL!!! That was just plain old FUNNY. How could she NOT know there would be a record of that event which would reveal her exaggeration *cough* lie????? :ursofunny

Did you see Sinbad's comment on it?

In her Iowa stump speech, Clinton also said: "We used to say in the White House that if a place is too dangerous, too small or too poor, send the First Lady."

Sinbad responds: "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"

That was a good one! Loved it! :ursofunny

[Sam]

for someone who is uninformed (or maybe just not too bright) what is Project Chaos?

[Rico]

Gee.Sensitive aren't we?
Nobody's trying to change your mind, bro. Do your thing.

You're free to express your feelings, and we're free to express if we agree or disagree.
That's all.


All I'm gonna say is I"m watchin you.


I think it's pretty ingenious actually.I think Obama will still end up with the nomination but Project Chaos will just make it a more difficult process... which is good for the conservative side.

Project Chaos may end up damaging Obama enough to help McCain win in November... a thought that seemed almost unthinkable 6-12 months ago.

Keep dreamin! As soon as Obama picks Richarson for his running mate yer goose will be cooked. And I mean crispy cooked too!

[MissBrattified]

I think it's pretty ingenious actually.I think Obama will still end up with the nomination but Project Chaos will just make it a more difficult process... which is good for the conservative side.

Project Chaos may end up damaging Obama enough to help McCain win in November... a thought that seemed almost unthinkable 6-12 months ago.

I think its hilarious and brilliant. It may or may not work in the long run, but definitely FUN for all the conservatives bored with the usual political games.

[TRFrance]

for someone who is uninformed (or maybe just not too bright) what is Project Chaos?

Its actually Operation Chaos
Essentially its conservative voting for Hillary to help her win some primaries, and lengthen the nomination process, with the intention of frustrating the process and leading to possible chaos leading up to, and into, the Democratic Convention.
More details here...
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_031808/content/01125112.guest.html

[chosenbyone]

There you go, MissBrattified...making sense again.
You know that's not appropriate for this thread.
Intelligent posts are not wanted, needed, or appreciated on this thread, ok?
Thank you!:coffee2

/sarcasm off/

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Qw9oX-kZ_9k&feature=related

[MissBrattified]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Qw9oX-kZ_9k&feature=related

LOL!!! I love that. So cute.

[Rico]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Qw9oX-kZ_9k&feature=related



:ursofunny:ursofunny:ursofunny That was hilarious!!! I forgot how funny it was when he said that!

[ChristopherHall]

So, when we allow people to come to our nation and smoke us to smithereens, then we will be justified as you are making them out to be???

I'd rather stop them before they get here, even if it means smoking their children.

Call me callous, but my children and their safety come first. Not theirs.

Don't you trust God to protect you and your family?

[ChristopherHall]

Chris picks and chooses the rules in which he sets up his arbitrary worldview.

Actually my view is the classical view of most fundamentalist churches. I didn't make it to my office last night, but I have resources there I can draw upon to show that Bible believing Christians in America have only recently embraced war as a "Christian" option.

I admonish you to read the Articles of Faith of the United Pentecostal Church International:

CONSCIENTIOUS SCRUPLES

We recognize the institution of human government as being of divine ordination, and, in so doing, affirm unswerving loyalty to our Government; however, we take a definite position regarding the bearing of arms or the taking of human life.

As followers of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace, we believe in implicit obedience to His commandments and precepts which instruct us as follows: ".. that ye resist not evil. . ." (Matt. 5:39): "Follow peace with all men..." (Heb. 12:14). (See also Matt. 26:52; Rom. 12:19; James 5:6; Revelation 13:10). These we believe and interpret to mean Christians shall not shed blood nor take human life.

Therefore, we propose to fulfill all the obligations of loyal citizens, but are constrained to declare against participating in combatant service in war, armed insurrection, property destruction, aiding or abetting in or the actual destruction of human life.

Furthermore, we cannot conscientiously affiliate with any union, boycott, or organization which will force or bind any of its members to belong to any organization, perform any duties contrary to our conscience, or receive any mark, without our right to affirm or reject same (1930).

However, we regret the false impression created by some groups or so-called "conscientious objectors" that to obey the Bible is to have a contempt for law or magistrates, to be disloyal to our Government and in sympathy with our enemies, or to be unwilling to sacrifice for the preservation of our commonwealth. This attitude would be as contemptible to us as to any patriot. The Word of God commands us to do violence to no man. It also commands us that first of all we are to pray for rulers of our country. We, therefore, exhort our members to freely and willingly respond to the call of our Government except in the matter of bearing arms. When we say service, we mean service-no matter how hard or dangerous. The true church has no more place for cowards than has the nation. First of all, however, let us earnestly pray that we will with honor be kept out of war.

We believe that we can be consistent in serving our Government in certain noncombatant capacities, but not in the bearing of arms. (1940).

We further believe that our military personnel must live in a manner consistent with the Articles of Faith.


I admonish you to read David K. Bernard's book, Practical Holiness a Second Look, where he goes into greater depth on the subject and clarifies why this is the Biblical position on warfare.

Essentially the conflict is between a teaching which is Pentecostal and of Holy Ghost origin and a teaching rooted in Reformed Presbyterianism.

I'm being challenged on account of holding a distinctly "Pentecostal" position.

[ChristopherHall]

That's why I don't discuss the trinity or predestination......at least here.

Who should one believe....David K. Bernard...a man full of the Holy Ghost who has been water baptized in Jesus name and knows the Oneness of God? Or you?

[ChristopherHall]

Chris if you are answering the posts so quickly how can you be reflective and possibly be taking in what is being said to you?

That goes both ways! LOL

[ChristopherHall]

So you compare the lives of innocent women and children to sin???

Chris, I hope you can do better than that.

Typology. Like little foxes.

[ChristopherHall]

Chris, let's stay on track here. This thread is about the words of Obama's pastor. His words have nothing to do with Christian nation worship, nor doctrinal issues. THAT is the point here, not the rabbit trails you keep steering into.

And I knew that Rico wasn't talking about what you were. He was too simple and to the point. You are about more than that.

But the question is...was Obama's pastor making some valid points regarding America's embrace of warfare and the slaughter of innocents...especially among professed Christians?

[ChristopherHall]

Another 'gut feeling'?

LOL!

David K. Bernard is born again of the water and the Spirit. ReformedDave is...well...is a work in progress. LOL

[ChristopherHall]

Chris, it doesnt matter if you agree or not. His right. You're wrong.

Have you read any of Bernard's work on the subject? Do you know the Articles of Faith of the UPCI? Did you know Pentecostal churches began issuing minister's licenses on the grounds of providing grounds for consciencious objector status? There is quite a bit of this in our foundational history. Only since the advent of the right wing dominionists have we seen a departure from the classical doctrine of Scripture on the matter.

[ChristopherHall]

There's not much credit that one will get when they can only posts facts based on 'gut feelings'.

I've had those "gut feelings" while preaching and spoke directly into a situation I knew nothing about. Sister...we walk by faith.

[ChristopherHall]

If it is, this is a self-inflicted wound on Obama's part. If John McCain wins in November, Obama will have no-one to blame but himself.

There may be some truth to that TR.

[ChristopherHall]

Of course you have the freedom to not partake in those traditions.

However, I would think that a man running for President of the United States of America would make sure he had all his traditional American ducks in a row. It shows that he is either too numb-skulled to realize how many people care about the "little things", or he is deliberately stating that the little things are unimportant to him.

Again, Obama leads the pledge and has repeatedly placed his hand over his heart during the anthem on many occasions. We have just ONE picture when the anthem was being played, I believe it was a rehersal, and he didn't put his hand over his heart. And people are making it sound like it's something that he does half the time.

[ChristopherHall]

Good post Miss Brattperson.

It is this kind of lack of respect for ones country, it's history, and all those who sacrificed to make it (despite all of it's flaws) the best place on earth that is part of what is wrong with our country today.

Kids are raised hearing everything in their life torn down verbally from their pastor, church to their country. No wonder things are like they are.

Exagerrated charges.

[ChristopherHall]

a good story about an American flag made in Viet Nam can be found at:
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/soapbox/mccain.asp

The stuff about Obama is out on snopes too Bro. LOL It's all exagerrated points or complete falsehoods. But "Holy Ghost" people are buying into it.

[MissBrattified]

The stuff about Obama is out on snopes too Bro. LOL It's all exaggerated points or complete falsehoods. But "Holy Ghost" people are buying into it.

Did you read the story Sam posted? It's really good. :)

By the way, it doesn't take away from a person's "Holy Ghost" if they happen to be wrong about something. Good thing, right? :D

[ChristopherHall]

An interesting article on the subject:

http://www.ninetyandnine.com/Archives/20021209/prtcover.htm

[COOPER]

Christo pher hall................

Are you an Obama supporter and will you vote for him?

Is Obama your Perez-i-dent'l hopeful?

[MissBrattified]

An interesting article on the subject:

http://www.ninetyandnine.com/Archives/20021209/prtcover.htm

Wrong topic, CH. :)

[BrotherEastman]

Nice Avatar, BE!
Thanks!

[BrotherEastman]

I agree! Wish I could see a bigger one though!
If I knew how to post the picture as an attachment, I would. Sorry.

[ChristopherHall]

Christo pher hall................

Are you an Obama supporter and will you vote for him?

Is Obama your Perez-i-dent'l hopeful?

I was very Pro-Obama.

But some things have caused me pause. I know for sure that I'm not voting Republican. If a decent third party candidate arises in the Constitution Party (perhaps Ron Paul) I may vote for him. My issue is that the Republicans need to be given time out to think about the direction they're taking. Voting for them is like a pat on the back for a job terribly done. My lesser issues are Health Care, jobs, and liveable wages, and flex time.

[BrotherEastman]

Just copy it and blow it up if you're just wanting it for your dartboard!

:bliss:bliss
Hey! Don't be giving her any ideas. LOL!

[BrotherEastman]

Ummm....not with his wife and baby in the pic!! LOL!
I know where you live! Don't make me come over there!

[ChristopherHall]

Wrong topic, CH. :)

I'm talking about America's "war worship" which is what may have caused our chickens to "come home to roost", as Jeremiah Wright stated.

We as a Pentecostal people have departed from the ways of our elders and the Holy Ghost convictions that laid our foundations. It may be OUR falling away from the ways of peace that has led GOD to remove his hand of protection allowing us to be swept into war without end. If we, as a people of God, were pleasing God...it is believed by many that God would protect the land.

America's hope is in US being true to God's Word.

[BrotherEastman]

According to the Sodom & Gomorrah Principle, God will spare an evil city for a handful of righteous people.
Excellent thought Abi, you're right. Where'd ya get yer wisdom?:bliss

[BrotherEastman]

Excellent point.

Chris and others like him remind me of Jonah.

Go and preach how people will die by the wrath of God, sit under a tree waiting for the fireworks, then become angry that God changed His mind.
Chris obvoiusly forgot about the mercies of God.

[ChristopherHall]

Thanks!

I'd like to chime in to. Nice Avatar!

[BrotherEastman]

I agree with you...we have enough to deal with in our own back yard....
Yes we do, but we do not need some socialistic democrat to opress us to do it. I will agree that we need someone to clean up our back yard.

[BrotherEastman]

I'd like to chime in to. Nice Avatar!
Thank you sir!

[ChristopherHall]

Chris obvoiusly forgot about the mercies of God.

Bro. Eastman, that individual took what I said out of context. I haven't forgotten the mercies of God...but I am well aware of the reality of God's wrath.

Beware when they say "peace peace". The New Testament speaks of the "full cup" principle. In the book of Revelation the harlot is judged once the cup she carries is full of her sinfulness and debauchery. God judges nations and systems like this throughout the Old Testament. National and systemic sins are accumulative and unless a nation repents and comes clean over previous sin it adds to her cup until it is full and God's wrath overflows.

Sodom and Gomorrah are examples of exceptions, they are not the rule. Abraham personally negotiated with God so that if only 10 righteous were found in the cities God would spare them. HeavenlyOne takes this for granted as a universal principle...theologically speaking...it was an exception to the rule.

[ReformedDave]

Who should one believe....David K. Bernard...a man full of the Holy Ghost who has been water baptized in Jesus name and knows the Oneness of God? Or you?

Depends one who is telling the truth. Content. Judge what is actually said. You commit the genetic fallacy. Try logic 101.....ah forget logic.

[ReformedDave]

Actually my view is the classical view of most fundamentalist churches. I didn't make it to my office last night, but I have resources there I can draw upon to show that Bible believing Christians in America have only recently embraced war as a "Christian" option.

I admonish you to read the Articles of Faith of the United Pentecostal Church International:



I admonish you to read David K. Bernard's book, Practical Holiness a Second Look, where he goes into greater depth on the subject and clarifies why this is the Biblical position on warfare.

Essentially the conflict is between a teaching which is Pentecostal and of Holy Ghost origin and a teaching rooted in Reformed Presbyterianism.

I'm being challenged on account of holding a distinctly "Pentecostal" position.

Look CH, I know more about oneness Pentecostalism then you probably ever will. Sad but true. You are making the articles of faith a second cannon while I have never brought up mine. You are not a pentecostal martyr. BTW, Bernard, whom I'm actually like as a person, is the authoritative voice for OPs?

[ReformedDave]

I was very Pro-Obama.

But some things have caused me pause. I know for sure that I'm not voting Republican. If a decent third party candidate arises in the Constitution Party (perhaps Ron Paul) I may vote for him. My issue is that the Republicans need to be given time out to think about the direction they're taking. Voting for them is like a pat on the back for a job terribly done. My lesser issues are Health Care, jobs, and liveable wages, and flex time.

You could actually vote for a neo-libertarian like Ron Paul or someone from the Constitution Party? Diametrically opposed to much of what you espouse.

[ChristopherHall]

Look child, I know more about oneness Pentecostalism then you probably ever will. Sad but true. You are making the articles of faith a second cannon while I have never brought up mine. You are not a pentecostal martyr. BTW, Bernard, whom I'm actually like as a person, is the authoritative voice for OPs?

Bro. Bernard is a Holy Ghost filled man of God. Bro. Bernard is also recognized as the leading apologist of the United Pentecostal Church Internationa, the largest oneness body on the planet. The ministerial reading list extensively references his works.

You aren't even Apostolic. You can "know" what some have said about us...but one can't know the depth of what it truly means to be Apostolic unless they are one.

Fundamentally what we have here is a collision between two worldviews...your Reformed Presbyterianism and Apostolic Pentecostalism. It's like Islam colliding with Christianity. The two are not compatible.

I'd also like to call into remembrance history....Christian history is ripe with examples of how Trinitarian dominionists repeatedly seized or attempted to seize power for the sole purpose of propagating the kingdom of their three headed god...even if it had to be done by firelight produced by the burning bodies of one God Apostolics.

I reject your dominionism as an outright threat to the existance of the Church of the Living God. You come against this with Reformed Tradition...but I come against that tradition in the name of the LORD. And his name is....

JESUS

[ChristopherHall]

You could actually vote for a neo-libertarian like Ron Paul or someone from the Constitution Party? Diametrically opposed to much of what you espouse.

Not in support of them perse...but in opposition to rewarding the Republicans for drifting further and further to the left. No third party candidate has a chance to win. It's a protest vote. Targetted to slap one or both of the two leading parties.

[ReformedDave]

Bro. Bernard is a Holy Ghost filled man of God. Bro. Bernard is also recognized as the leading apologist of the United Pentecostal Church Internationa, the largest oneness body on the planet. The ministerial reading list extensively references his works.

You aren't even Apostolic. You can "know" what some have said about us...but one can't know the depth of what it truly means to be Apostolic unless they are one.

Fundamentally what we have here is a collision between two worldviews...your Reformed Presbyterianism and Apostolic Pentecostalism. It's like Islam colliding with Christianity. The two are not compatible.

I'd also like to call into remembrance history....Christian history is ripe with examples of how Trinitarian dominionists repeatedly seized or attempted to seize power for the sole purpose of propagating the kingdom of their three headed god...even if it had to be done by firelight produced by the burning bodies of one God Apostolics.

I reject your dominionism as an outright threat to the existance of the Church of the Living God. You come against this with Reformed Tradition...but I come against that tradition in the name of the LORD. And his name is....

JESUS

Big difference. I know oneness theology backwards and forwards and you don't know the same about Reformed theology. If you are consistent, which you don't seem able to be, you'd better not ever quote anything but from the source of oneness pens. You sure haven't in the past.

[ChristopherHall]

ReformedDave....

I'm praying for you.

[ReformedDave]

ReformedDave....

I'm praying for you.

Thanks. Likewise.

[Encryptus]

[QUOTE=ChristopherHall;423003]

You aren't even Apostolic. You can "know" what some have said about us...but one can't know the depth of what it truly means to be Apostolic unless they are one.

.your Reformed Presbyterianism and Apostolic Pentecostalism. It's like Islam colliding with Christianity.

[QUOTE]


Dave,

Feel fortunate, he only compared Presbyterians to Muslims.

Could have been worse bro, he could have called you papists.

[ChristopherHall]

Big difference. I know oneness theology backwards and forwards and you don't know the same about Reformed theology. If you are consistent, which you don't seem able to be, you'd better not ever quote anything but from the source of oneness pens. You sure haven't in the past.

Here's a list of the works I'm familiar with reflecting some of what you believe....

Before Jerusalem Fell by Gary North
Bringing in the Sheaves by George Grant
Christian Reconstruction What It Is and What It Isn't by Gary Demar
Conspiracy A Biblical View by Gary North (I’ve not read this one but I have it.)
Cooperation and Dominion by Gary North
Days of Vengence by David Chilton (While I’ve not read this entire commentary I refer to it quite a bit in my studies of your theology.)
He Shall Have Dominion by Kenneth Gentry
Healer of the Nations by Gary North
In the Shadow of Plenty by George Grant (read part of it and got disinterested)
Inherit the Earth by Gary North
Leviticus An Economic Commentary by Gary North (actually found this to be quite interesting)
Moses and Pharoah by Gary North (haven’t read it but looked at a couple items in it)
Paradise Restored by David Chilton
Rapture Fever by Gary North (actually thought this was insightful)
Ruler of the Nations by Gary Demar
Second Chance by Ray Sutton
Tactics of Christian Resistance (thought this was provocative)
The Beast of Revelation by Kenneth Gentry (VERY interesting, but I disagree)
The Dominion Covenant by Gary North
The Great Tribulation by David Chilton (again, VERY interesting but I disagree)
The Greatness of the Great Commission by Kenneth Gentry (still reading it in short parts)
The Law of the Covenant by James Jordan (interesting concepts)
The Reconstruction of the Church by James Jordan (I’ve not read this yet but I have it).
The Theology of Christian Resistance (Not looked into this one yet)
Victims Rights by Gary North
When Justice Is Aborted by Gary North (Interesting and provocative)

I’ve also studied the Westminsters Confession and I have reference materials from several dead fellows from the Reformed movement. LOL

I have all of these in .pdf also. What have you read belonging to Bro. Bernard?

[ChristopherHall]

[QUOTE=ChristopherHall;423003]

You aren't even Apostolic. You can "know" what some have said about us...but one can't know the depth of what it truly means to be Apostolic unless they are one.

.your Reformed Presbyterianism and Apostolic Pentecostalism. It's like Islam colliding with Christianity.

[QUOTE]


Dave,

Feel fortunate, he only compared Presbyterians to Muslims.

Could have been worse bro, he could have called you papists.

That's one thing they have in their favor...they're not papists. However, they are Christian Theonomists bent on imposing their version of Biblical Law in society through government. So...same girl, different dress. ;)

[ReformedDave]

[QUOTE=ChristopherHall;423003]

You aren't even Apostolic. You can "know" what some have said about us...but one can't know the depth of what it truly means to be Apostolic unless they are one.

.your Reformed Presbyterianism and Apostolic Pentecostalism. It's like Islam colliding with Christianity.

[QUOTE]


Dave,

Feel fortunate, he only compared Presbyterians to Muslims.

Could have been worse bro, he could have called you papists.

Correct. It doesn't matter. He refuses to deal with arguments and can't follow logical thought without becoming pejorative. He's fairly well read in what he believes but knows little about the opposition's source material.

[ChristopherHall]

ReformedDave,

Oh, and I have a hard bound book by Rushdoony titled, Institutes of Biblical Law. I did find this to be very interesting…but found it to be a very extreme interpretation.

What are your thoughts on Rushdoony?

[Rico]

Bro. Bernard is a Holy Ghost filled man of God. Bro. Bernard is also recognized as the leading apologist of the United Pentecostal Church Internationa, the largest oneness body on the planet. The ministerial reading list extensively references his works.

You aren't even Apostolic. You can "know" what some have said about us...but one can't know the depth of what it truly means to be Apostolic unless they are one.

Fundamentally what we have here is a collision between two worldviews...your Reformed Presbyterianism and Apostolic Pentecostalism. It's like Islam colliding with Christianity. The two are not compatible.

I'd also like to call into remembrance history....Christian history is ripe with examples of how Trinitarian dominionists repeatedly seized or attempted to seize power for the sole purpose of propagating the kingdom of their three headed god...even if it had to be done by firelight produced by the burning bodies of one God Apostolics.

I reject your dominionism as an outright threat to the existance of the Church of the Living God. You come against this with Reformed Tradition...but I come against that tradition in the name of the LORD. And his name is....

JESUS

Brother, I don't think you quite know who you are talking to. If what you are saying is based on one of your gut feelings then I have to tell you your gut is way off on this one. LOL!

[DividedThigh]

theres an old lwt song the wind is blowing again, so appropriate at this stage, now some body is proposing turning this into another pacifist versus sefl defense debate, enough, lol,dt

[ReformedDave]

ReformedDave,

Oh, and I have a hard bound book by Rushdoony titled, Institutes of Biblical Law. I did find this to be very interesting…but found it to be a very extreme interpretation.

What are your thoughts on Rushdoony?

Somethings I agree with somethings and many things I don't, but his writings are more of application and not of exposition. I do agree with his assessment of culture and state in the realm of education.

I DO agree with the 'Molech' worshiping Greg Bahnsen. He provides sound exposition and application of the Biblical position. Along with that he was the finest apologist/debater of our time.

[Rico]

RD, you and I both know you can probably end all this foolishness in one or two posts. LOL! What are ya waitin for?

[ChristopherHall]

Somethings I agree with somethings and many things I don't, but his writings are more of application and not of exposition. I do agree with his assessment of culture and state in the realm of education.

In a presentation sponsored by the Chalcedon (a leading Reformed Theonomist think tank), Rushdoony advocated denying tax exempt status to groups recognized as cults such as the JW’s on the grounds that they do not hold to any traditional Christian creed.

Would not Rushdoony’s position advocate the same for Oneness Pentecostal churches?

I DO agree with the 'Molech' worshiping Greg Bahnsen. He provides sound exposition and application of the Biblical position. Along with that he was the finest apologist/debater of our time.

Was he baptized in the name of Jesus and filled with the Holy Ghost?

Again it comes down to a non-Apostolic Reformed Trinitarian worldview vs. classical Oneness Apostolic Pentecostal worldview.

Bahnsen was indeed led by great intellect.
But Bro. Bernard is led of the Holy Ghost.

I'll go with Bro. Bernard. God has chosen the foolish things to confound the wise. ;)

[ChristopherHall]

And I am set for the defense of the Gospel.

[ChristopherHall]

My Molech comment was drawn from the writings of Edith Blumhofer regarding early Pentecostal leaders, namely Samuel-Clibborn Booth who equated pro-war patriotism to Molechism in that churches were sending their children to die defending godless earthly nations as opposed to protecting their children from such wars and preparing them to preach the gospel.

I love you Reformed, but as you can see this issue is highly complicated and depending upon which school of theology you espouse, it will cause you to lean to one camp or the other. In the voice of Rev. Wright I heard ecos of Samuel-Clibborn Booth's denunciation of America's warfare as Molechism. While it does cause me pause that Wright would bring race into the picture. Theologically he's views aren't far from that held by those who laid the foundation of Pentecost.

So I pray you can see where I'm coming from.

[chosenbyone]

I was very Pro-Obama.

But some things have caused me pause. I know for sure that I'm not voting Republican. If a decent third party candidate arises in the Constitution Party (perhaps Ron Paul) I may vote for him. My issue is that the Republicans need to be given time out to think about the direction they're taking. Voting for them is like a pat on the back for a job terribly done. My lesser issues are Health Care, jobs, and liveable wages, and flex time.

CH,

I am with ya, brother.

Currently, we have fibbing Hillary, unpatriotic Obama and "senior moments" McCain. Surely, there was ONE person waiting in the wings that would be the President we all could rally behind.

[HeavenlyOne]

Don't you trust God to protect you and your family?

Sure. Does that mean I don't work to feed and clothe them because I trust God?

No.

Neither did the Hebrew children. Do you believe that as much as they trusted God to protect them, they still had to fight???

[HeavenlyOne]

Who should one believe....David K. Bernard...a man full of the Holy Ghost who has been water baptized in Jesus name and knows the Oneness of God? Or you?

I think that throwing his credibility down the toilet because he doesn't hold the same beliefs as you is childish, Chris.

Holy Ghost filled men aren't infallible. Don't equate them with God.

[HeavenlyOne]

Typology. Like little foxes.

Only according to you. I've heard other Holy Ghost filled men say otherwise.

Who should I believe...them, being preachers and pastors, or you?

[HeavenlyOne]

But the question is...was Obama's pastor making some valid points regarding America's embrace of warfare and the slaughter of innocents...especially among professed Christians?

Chris, his comments go far beyond that and you know it.

[HeavenlyOne]

Have you read any of Bernard's work on the subject? Do you know the Articles of Faith of the UPCI? Did you know Pentecostal churches began issuing minister's licenses on the grounds of providing grounds for consciencious objector status? There is quite a bit of this in our foundational history. Only since the advent of the right wing dominionists have we seen a departure from the classical doctrine of Scripture on the matter.

Chris, the UPCI doesn't have the 'arrival of all truth' that you appear to be claiming. Those books were written by men. Men are infallible.

[HeavenlyOne]

I've had those "gut feelings" while preaching and spoke directly into a situation I knew nothing about. Sister...we walk by faith.

Chris, one man's gut feeling is another man's gas.

Don't equate your 'gut feelings' while preaching to making 'gut feelings' comments on this forum about 'facts' that might not really be so.

[HeavenlyOne]

I know where you live! Don't make me come over there!

LOL!

Send the pic to one of the admins and they can post it for you if you like.

[ReformedDave]

In a presentation sponsored by the Chalcedon (a leading Reformed Theonomist think tank), Rushdoony advocated denying tax exempt status to groups recognized as cults such as the JW’s on the grounds that they do not hold to any traditional Christian creed.

Would not Rushdoony’s position advocate the same for Oneness Pentecostal churches?



Was he baptized in the name of Jesus and filled with the Holy Ghost?

Again it comes down to a non-Apostolic Reformed Trinitarian worldview vs. classical Oneness Apostolic Pentecostal worldview.

Bahnsen was indeed led by great intellect.
But Bro. Bernard is led of the Holy Ghost.

I'll go with Bro. Bernard. God has chosen the foolish things to confound the wise. ;)

We have a difference in presuppositions that can only be decided on one way.

The big difference is that I was once where you are....interpret as you will.

[HeavenlyOne]

Bro. Bernard is a Holy Ghost filled man of God. Bro. Bernard is also recognized as the leading apologist of the United Pentecostal Church Internationa, the largest oneness body on the planet. The ministerial reading list extensively references his works.

You aren't even Apostolic. You can "know" what some have said about us...but one can't know the depth of what it truly means to be Apostolic unless they are one.

Fundamentally what we have here is a collision between two worldviews...your Reformed Presbyterianism and Apostolic Pentecostalism. It's like Islam colliding with Christianity. The two are not compatible.

I'd also like to call into remembrance history....Christian history is ripe with examples of how Trinitarian dominionists repeatedly seized or attempted to seize power for the sole purpose of propagating the kingdom of their three headed god...even if it had to be done by firelight produced by the burning bodies of one God Apostolics.

I reject your dominionism as an outright threat to the existance of the Church of the Living God. You come against this with Reformed Tradition...but I come against that tradition in the name of the LORD. And his name is....

JESUS

Chris, I don't think you know who Dave is. His knowledge makes you look clueless. Seriously.

[HeavenlyOne]

theres an old lwt song the wind is blowing again, so appropriate at this stage, now some body is proposing turning this into another pacifist versus sefl defense debate, enough, lol,dt


It's just another 'gut feeling' coming out......LOL!

[ChristopherHall]

It is also of a concern to me that views that have become popular among our ranks are strangely becoming more and more Dominionist (foundational Post-Millennial) as opposed to being more in harmony with our articles of faith and our Dispensationalist roots. I personally think Preterism has seen growth in Oneness Pentecostalism via making inroads through Dominionistic ideas. It’s a slow but steady theological takeover.

[ChristopherHall]

I'm not dazzled by intellectual knowledge. I'm all about anointing. And the anointing doesn't dwell in the absence of truth.

[DividedThigh]

It's just another 'gut feeling' coming out......LOL!

sooner or later you will tire of his evolution, but hang in there sis, prayin for you, dt:bliss

[ChristopherHall]

CH,

I am with ya, brother.

Currently, we have fibbing Hillary, unpatriotic Obama and "senior moments" McCain. Surely, there was ONE person waiting in the wings that would be the President we all could rally behind.

chosen, guard your heart...there is a spirit wondering among all of us posting.

[ReformedDave]

I'm not dazzled by intellectual knowledge. I'm all about anointing. And the anointing doesn't dwell in the absence of truth.

You drive a wedge between knowledge and 'anointing'. Gnosticism rides again.

[ChristopherHall]

So in light of classical Pentecostalism and Apostolic apologetics would not Jeremiah Wright’s concerns regarding the evaporation of innocent children in an unprecedented act of war conducted upon the civilian population of Japan be warranted for consideration, just as Samuel-Clibborn Booth’s assessment of patriotic Molechism was warranted during WWI?

Would not the willingness to advocate, “better their children than mine”, as opposed to praying for peace and opposing the sinful circumstances entirely also be of some ethical concern?

[HeavenlyOne]

I'm not dazzled by intellectual knowledge. I'm all about anointing. And the anointing doesn't dwell in the absence of truth.

So, JW has the anointing, huh?

ROFL!!!

Just another 'gut feeling', I'm sure.

[HeavenlyOne]

You drive a wedge between knowledge and 'anointing'. Gnosticism rides again.

He speaks out of both sides of his mouth. I don't believe even he knows exactly what he stands for nor what is going on here.

[ChristopherHall]

You drive a wedge between knowledge and 'anointing'. Gnosticism rides again.

I have no issue with anointed knowledge and anointing. However, I caution against unanointed knowledge mixed with professed anointing. Such is lukewarm at best.

It is written,

1 Corinthians 2:4
And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:

[Rico]

He speaks out of both sides of his mouth. I don't believe even he knows exactly what he stands for nor what is going on here.

Let's see if you and I are on the same page. What is going on here? :)

[HeavenlyOne]

So in light of classical Pentecostalism and Apostolic apologetics would not Jeremiah Wright’s concerns regarding the evaporation of innocent children in an unprecedented act of war conducted upon the civilian population of Japan be warranted for consideration, just as Samuel-Clibborn Booth’s assessment of patriotic Molechism was warranted during WWI?

Would not the willingness to advocate, “better their children than mine”, as opposed to praying for peace and opposing the sinful circumstances entirely also be of some ethical concern?

Chris, many Holy Ghost filled men on this forum disagree with JW, yet, instead of following what you claim to believe about anointing not dwelling in men who lack truth, you throw that out the window in an attempt to win an argument.

Gut feelings don't replace truth nor anointing, Chris.

[ChristopherHall]

So, JW has the anointing, huh?

ROFL!!!

Just another 'gut feeling', I'm sure.

I'm refering to Bro. David K. Bernard and the classical views of classical Oneness Pentecostalism that developed early on in our movements and left an undeniable impact on black churches throughout America.

[ChristopherHall]

He speaks out of both sides of his mouth. I don't believe even he knows exactly what he stands for nor what is going on here.

I believe you're missing the point of the underlying issues.

[Rico]

I believe you're missing the point of the underlying issues.

Of course you do. LOL!

[HeavenlyOne]

Let's see if you and I are on the same page. What is going on here? :)

His claims that since certain Holy Ghost filled men say one thing, and non Holy Ghost filled men say another, he'll choose the Holy Ghost filled men because they have anointing, yet JW isn't Holy Ghost filled (according to how Chris believes), but he'll toss aside the words of Holy Ghost filled men on this forum to defend his 'gut feelings', which he takes as anointing, but I think it's just gas bubbles.
;)

[HeavenlyOne]

I'm refering to Bro. David K. Bernard and the classical views of classical Oneness Pentecostalism that developed early on in our movements and left an undeniable impact on black churches throughout America.

Chris, I'm just repeating your own words in the matter. You can rearrange them to suit you in whatever situation you please.

[ChristopherHall]

Chris, many Holy Ghost filled men on this forum disagree with JW, yet, instead of following what you claim to believe about anointing not dwelling in men who lack truth, you throw that out the window in an attempt to win an argument.

Gut feelings don't replace truth nor anointing, Chris.

This isn't about winning an argument. It's about defending truth. This isn't something I expect to win.

HeavenlyOne...are you meaning to tell me you'd allow Reformed Presbyteran Dominionists shape or enfluence your world view over an anointed Apostolic man of God such as Bro. David K. Bernard?

[Rico]

His claims that since certain Holy Ghost filled men say one thing, and non Holy Ghost filled men say another, he'll choose the Holy Ghost filled men because they have anointing, yet JW isn't Holy Ghost filled (according to how Chris believes), but he'll toss aside the words of Holy Ghost filled men on this forum to defend his 'gut feelings', which he takes as anointing, but I think it's just gas bubbles.
;)

What I thought was going on here is that CH made some comments directed at RD that are not true. He has since then been trying to prod RD into a debate with him, which CH would promptly lose because he is completely out of his league when it comes to RD. However, being the gentleman that he is, RD has not taken the aforementioned bait. That, plus what you said! LOL!

[HeavenlyOne]

This isn't about winning an argument. It's about defending truth. This isn't something I expect to win.

HeavenlyOne...are you meaning to tell me you'd allow Reformed Presbyteran Dominionists shape or enfluence your world view over an anointed Apostolic man of God such as Bro. David K. Bernard?

No, but I wouldn't throw out their words because they don't have the Holy Ghost either.

Neither would I necessarily agree with everything DKB has to say.

[ReformedDave]

I have no issue with anointed knowledge and anointing. However, I caution against unanointed knowledge mixed with professed anointing. Such is lukewarm at best.

It is written,

1 Corinthians 2:4
And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:

And I believe that I follow men who have that annointing along with knowledge. And you and I disagree. So what settles the matter? Obviously Scripture.

[HeavenlyOne]

What I thought was going on here is that CH made some comments directed at RD that are not true. He has since then been trying to prod RD into a debate with him, which CH would promptly lose because he is completely out of his league when it comes to RD. However, being the gentleman that he is, RD has not taken the aforementioned bait. That, plus what you said! LOL!

Yeah, I saw that you said what I said about RD's knowledge just before I posted it. He doesn't know who he's talking to, that's for sure. LOL!

[ReformedDave]

Yeah, I saw that you said what I said about RD's knowledge just before I posted it. He doesn't know who he's talking to, that's for sure. LOL!

I appreciate the backup but don't waste your resources. Not worth the effort.

[ChristopherHall]

His claims that since certain Holy Ghost filled men say one thing, and non Holy Ghost filled men say another, he'll choose the Holy Ghost filled men because they have anointing, yet JW isn't Holy Ghost filled (according to how Chris believes), but he'll toss aside the words of Holy Ghost filled men on this forum to defend his 'gut feelings', which he takes as anointing, but I think it's just gas bubbles.
;)


This is a very complex discussion. Jeremiah Wright’s statements are similar to those made by classical Pentecostals during the first 3 decades of the 1900’s regarding warfare. The issue in consideration is the vaporization of innocent children when the United States dropped two atomic bombs on an unsuspecting civilian population (innocent men, women, and children). Jeremiah Wright took strong issue with this, however many of us here wave our flags and feel that it’s better them than us. Seemingly we have forgotten that our Pentecostal forefathers would have fallen down in prayer for innocents and refused to support any action that would have taken innocent lives. As a matter of fact it is in our articles of faith that the UPCI stands against the taking of life and only supports non-combatant military service. This precludes praise and support of widespread killing of innocent civilians yet we see this here. ReformedDave’s theology presents a radical break from classical Pentecostalism. He has clearly impressed many here and has had a bit of influence. However, his views are alien to those held by Holy Ghost lead people. ReformedDave’s views are in harmony with the Reformed Presbyternain’s Theonomics, a leading philosophical branch in the Christian Right and Religio-Political Conservatism. Essentially this equates to a break from Holy Ghost led teaching of peace and separation for assimilation into the Dominionist paradigm. It’s disturbing.

Jeremiah Wright’s comments may have been over the top…however the discussion regarding them has revealed an even greater theological divide among Apostolic Pentecostals and an abandonment of the ways of peace as taught by our founders.

So there are two intertwined discussions taking place and each overlaps the other.

[ChristopherHall]

And I believe that I follow men who have that annointing along with knowledge. And you and I disagree. So what settles the matter? Obviously Scripture.

Please present physical violence, use of lethal force, revolution, and/or war as being advocated or presented by example among those living under the New Covenant in the New Testament Church. Please commit to not posting until you do. That will settle the issue. ;)

[Rico]

This is a very complex discussion. Jeremiah Wright’s statements are similar to those made by classical Pentecostals during the first 3 decades of the 1900’s regarding warfare. The issue in consideration is the vaporization of innocent children when the United States dropped two atomic bombs on an unsuspecting civilian population (innocent men, women, and children). Jeremiah Wright took strong issue with this, however many of us here wave our flags and feel that it’s better them than us. Seemingly we have forgotten that our Pentecostal forefathers would have fallen down in prayer for innocents and refused to support any action that would have taken innocent lives. As a matter of fact it is in our articles of faith that the UPCI stands against the taking of life and only supports non-combatant military service. This precludes praise and support of widespread killing of innocent civilians yet we see this here. ReformedDave’s theology presents a radical break from classical Pentecostalism. He has clearly impressed many here and has had a bit of influence. However, his views are alien to those held by Holy Ghost lead people. ReformedDave’s views are in harmony with the Reformed Presbyternain’s Theonomics, a leading philosophical branch in the Christian Right and Religio-Political Conservatism. Essentially this equates to a break from Holy Ghost led teaching of peace and separation for assimilation into the Dominionist paradigm. It’s disturbing.

Jeremiah Wright’s comments may have been over the top…however the discussion regarding them has revealed an even greater theological divide among Apostolic Pentecostals and an abandonment of the ways of peace as taught by our founders.

So there are two intertwined discussions taking place and each overlaps the other.

CH, this is all fine and dandy, but RD knows what you believe better than you know what you believe. He rarely comes out in defense of his beliefs, but when he does you had better look out. You are completely out of your league and don't even know it.

[ChristopherHall]

No, but I wouldn't throw out their words because they don't have the Holy Ghost either.

Neither would I necessarily agree with everything DKB has to say.

Oh, I don't throw out their words. But as far as being viewed as having any authority among the Holy Ghost church of the Spirit filled...their teachings are but dung.

[ChristopherHall]

CH, this is all fine and dandy, but RD knows what you believe better than you know what you believe. He rarely comes out in defense of his beliefs, but when he does you had better look out. You are completely out of your league and don't even know it.

I serve a big God. David took down the giant. What have I to fear?

[Rico]

I serve a big God. David took down the giant. What have I to fear?

Fear has nothing to do with it. Wisdom does, however. RD could embarass you very easily if he wanted to. I am going to let it go after this post, but I am telling you, you are completely out of your league, Bro.

[DividedThigh]

hes been out of his league for a while, get on over to move on dot org,and find your true bros, lol,dt just kiddin

[ChristopherHall]

Fear has nothing to do with it. Wisdom does, however. RD could embarass you very easily if he wanted to. I am going to let it go after this post, but I am telling you, you are completely out of your league, Bro.

If he embarasses me it will be by personal attack, for I am a a flawed individual. However, I suspect that it will not be through discussion of the biblical view point.

[ChristopherHall]

hes been out of his league for a while, get on over to move on dot org,and find your true bros, lol,dt just kiddin

lol

Thanks for the light heartedness DT. God bless you.

[ReformedDave]

Please present violence advocated or presented by example among those living under the New Covenant. Please commit to not posting until you do. That will settle the issue. ;)

Again, I've mentioned that an argument from silence is no argument. Plus, I can list many places where the apostles quoted directly from the case laws of the old as still binding. I assume the the provisions of the Old are still in force until changed in the New. I don't make the leap to assume discontinuation if they are not mentioned. There is no conflict between the covenants. Same God with the one plan of redemption.

[Rico]

If he embarasses me it will be by personal attack, for I am a a flawed individual. However, I suspect that it will not be through discussion of the biblical view point.

Ok. I know I said I wouldn't post on it anymore, but I will clarify. What I meant when I said he would embarass you is that his level of posting, when he puts his mind to it, is much higher and more advanced than anything I have ever read from you. He's smarter than you are, better with words than you are, and knows much more about what you believe as an apostolic than you do; never mind what he knows about what he believes. In a nutshell, he can post circles around you without even trying. I didn't want to have to put it to you this way, but well, I did.

[Timmy]

I find it very interesting that the Holy Ghost so often tells different people different things.

[DividedThigh]

I find it very interesting that the Holy Ghost so often tells different people different things.

that depends on who is hearing voices, lo, dt

[ChristopherHall]

Again, I've mentioned that an argument from silence is no argument.

This isn't an argument from silence. I can present multiple examples of Christians refusing to retaliate from the most violent of physical attacks, admonitions against retaliation, commands to bless one’s enemy in the hopes of winning their souls, and even admonitions to pay one’s taxes and obey the laws of pagan emperors…who were the most fearsome opponents of Christianity. Nowhere does Jesus, Paul, or any other apostle advocate violence, revolution, war, or lethal force, nowhere. In light of what we do see we can conclude a solid way of peace prescribed for the believer, who is not of this world, else would we fight. We are called to a higher standard of peace and holy conduct than even Old Testament Israel.

Present your case!

Plus, I can list many places where the apostles quoted directly from the case laws of the old as still binding.

Moral laws, yes, national and ceremonial no.

I assume the the provisions of the Old are still in force until changed in the New.

Those eternal provisions of the Old are laying in waiting until that glorious day when Christ returns and assumes the kingdom, bringing his dominion upon the earth for 1000 years. In that age those promises will be realized. Until then we are in the “times of the gentiles” and the earth has been experiencing tribulation that will culminate in great tribulation prior to the Lord’s glorious appearing. The provisions of the Old lay in waiting…but are not in force presently. For example….we don’t execute children who curse their parents. Nor do we execute adulteresses or other immoral individuals, though they are worthy of death. God is rich in both patience and mercy offering this period of grace seeing that he is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

Christ’s Kingdom is not of this world…it will continue to be a spiritual kingdom until he physically returns. Then he will judge the nations and establish the kingdom.

I don't make the leap to assume discontinuation if they are not mentioned. There is no conflict between the covenants. Same God with the one plan of redemption.

Each covenant is a contract. There are specific parties signed and bound. The Old Covenant with Israel was broken when they rejected their King. Now there is a New Covenant applied through Acts 2:38 and even Israel must obey it to be saved.

Give me examples of New Testament Saints engaged in acts of physical violence, retaliation, war, or using lethal force. Do you have these examples? Yes or no?

[ChristopherHall]

ReformedDave, are you a Trinitarian?

[ReformedDave]

ReformedDave, are you a Trinitarian?

Yes.

[ChristopherHall]

Yes.

If, according to you, the Trinity is the true God, what does the Old Testament Law require you to do to those of us who prophesy in the name of what you believe is a false God(Oneness) if it is still in force?

[ChristopherHall]

I present the following for consideration:


The Bible affirms the sanctity of human life in strong
terms. When one person kills another he violates God’s
law and destroys God’s image-creature (Genesis 9:5-6).
Furthermore, the killer destroys the victim’s future potential,
including the possibility of future salvation in the
case of an unsaved person.

The Law prohibited all murder (Exodus 20:13), and
the New Testament affirms this teaching (Matthew
15:18-20; Galatians 5:19-21; James 2:11; I Peter 4:15).
By extension this forbids violence and aggression. John
the Baptist told repentant soldiers, “Do violence to no
man” (Luke 3:14). He who hates is a murderer and does
not have eternal life (I John 3:14-15).

Jesus went beyond the Law in teaching nonviolence
and no retaliation. “Ye have heard that it hath been said,
An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: but I say unto
you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite
thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. . . . Ye
have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy
neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love
your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them
that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use
you, and persecute you” (Matthew 5:38-39, 43-44). (See
also Romans 12:19; I Peter 3:9.)

The Jerusalem Council admonished Gentile Christians
to abstain from blood (Acts 15:29). If Acts 15 teaches us
not to eat blood because it symbolizes life (Leviticus
17:10-11), surely it also teaches us to abstain from actual
bloodshed (taking of human life).

The New Testament thus leads us to reject the killing
of human beings under all circumstances, even in warfare,
self-defense, and suicide. In addition, the Bible indicates
that God considers the child in the womb to be a
human life; therefore we reject abortion since it is a form
of murder.” – David K. Bernard, Practical Holiness


In many ways our society is losing its sense of the
sanctity of human life. Abortion is now commonplace.

People have smothered or starved aborted babies who
continued to live outside the womb. Warfare is endemic
to our planet. Violence is a favorite topic for television
and movies, and audiences love it. The news media routinely
portray brutal scenes of war, terrorism, crime, and
accidents. Many theologians advocate violent rebellion
and terrorism as valid methods of achieving greater social
justice and democracy. Most countries use murder to
quell political dissent and accept aggressive war as part
of international politics. In general, our world accepts
violence and bloodshed as legitimate means to publicize
issues, resolve differences of opinion, and assert rights.
Recently there have been many specific indications of
the decreasing value society places on human life. In
Bloomington, Indiana, “a baby with Down’s syndrome
was starved to death in a hospital after doctors, parents,
and a state court agreed that no treatment should be
given.”26 A victim of cerebral palsy sued to force health
care workers to let her commit suicide by starvation; fortunately,
the court refused her. A U.S. governor discussed
the duty of the elderly to die and relieve the next generation
of the costly burden of care. The World Council of
Churches has provided financial support for “liberation”
armies committed to violence. A Nobel prize winner advocates
that infants not be declared human until several
days after birth so that those with defects can be legally
killed. The Humanist Manifesto recognizes the right to
commit suicide.

We wonder how the Nazis could have murdered six
million Jews and how a nation of civilized, “Christian”
people could have allowed such crimes to occur. Yet by
desensitizing ourselves to violence and killing, we are
conditioning ourselves to the point where our society
could accept such crimes on a similar scale. Already we
have accepted the killing of more than one million unborn
babies per year. Will this philosophy spread to justify
infanticide, euthanasia (“mercy killing”), killing of the
handicapped, killing of the aged, or assisting someone
who wishes to commit suicide? Where will it end?

What would the man Jesus do? Would Christ perform
an abortion? Would Christ cut up an unborn child and
throw it in a trash can? Would Christ shoot to kill a mugger?
Would Christ be a sniper in the army? Would Christ
plant a minefield? Would Christ flip the switch on an electric
chair? Would Christ be a member of a firing squad? If
He would not, then neither can we. The Christian solution
is to affirm the sanctity of the individual human life to
such an extent that we will not deliberately take a human
life for any reason. – David K. Bernard, Practical Holiness

[ReformedDave]

CH, Matthew 5:17-20 states 17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."

We see here clearly that the law is to be followed until heaven and earth pass away. The Pharisees were watering down the Law and Christ has come to bring it to it's fullness. Notice, Christ is referring to the Law and the Prophets.

CH, you keep referring to the fact that you can point to history. Remember, history is what WAS and not necessarily what SHOULD have been. In my post that you ignored I said that many espoused monasticism to get away from the 'world' but that is not Biblical.

You state that Christ fulfilled the ceremonial laws and national laws. Where do you get your Scriptural reference for 'national' laws being fulfilled? Paul mentions much about civil government and the just ruler of it and that includes using the sword. Sounds like Christians can and should be involved in the civil process. Just because God doesn't not choose to have an earthly literal nation He still lays ground work on which to govern by. He did the same for gentiles in the OT days.

Again, there are sins that are not mentioned in the NT that one has to use the OT to condemn them. To use your presupposition one cannot consistantly even call them sins.

[ChristopherHall]

I present the following for consideration (source cited):



If it is right for a Christian to kill for country, then is
it right for a Christian to lie, steal, become a prostitute,
worship idols or commit any other violation of God’s
moral law for country? Are we adrift on a sea of moral relativism
and situation ethics, in which we base moral decisions
on an individual’s subjective utilitarian analysis or
an unchristian government’s proclamations?

When we make the decision to take a human life, we
are making an exception to God’s Word because we do
not think it will work in our particular situation. However,
God’s moral law always brings the best results when
viewed from an eternal perspective.

We deplore the militaristic spirit often associated with
conservative religious movements today. We must not
equate Christianity with carnal warfare, or patriotism
with bloodshed. Even if we think some wars are justifiable
or even if we appreciate the positive benefits of some
wars, we must emphasize that war is essentially evil. It is
a scourge of mankind. We must never glorify war. If our
world were Christian, there would be no war, and if our
nation were Christian, God could protect us without war. – David K. Bernard, Practical Holiness

[ReformedDave]

If, according to you, the Trinity is the true God, what does the Old Testament Law require you to do to those of us who prophesy in the name of what you believe is a false God(Oneness) if it is still in force?

You are about as subtle as horse exhaust.

[ReformedDave]

I present the following for consideration (source cited):

Completely ignores Paul's acknowledgment of the right of the state to use the sword.

[DividedThigh]

Completely ignores Paul's acknowledgment of the right of the state to use the sword.

god bless you for trying rd, you are a good man, lol,dt:kickcan

[ReformedDave]

god bless you for trying rd, you are a good man, lol,dt:kickcan

Thanks.......not really worth it though.

[DividedThigh]

Thanks.......not really worth it though.

i know, keep that jazz playing bro, dt, lol

[Neck]

I was going to post this video on another thread, but I didn't want it to be missed. We've heard all the spin about Reverend J. Wright's (Obama's pastor) sermon after September 11. I had just about lost faith in Obama's judgement like so many others until I stumbled upon this video. I certainly had to repent last night for judging others after I heard what Wright had said before and after the snipit that played over and over on television. It was POWERFUL!

It was a shame that the mediia chose to take Wright's words out of context in order to create strife among the public and to help form doubt on a man of integrity. This video will surely cause everyone to see that they were played by the media just like me.



http://youtube.com/watch?v=QOdlnzkeoyQ

I take his work at his word.

If you curse the cross of calvary, but before it and after the statement you praise Jesus for being a good man.

Does that make your statement less powerful.

That is why man will be judged for everyword.

He may have tried to not say what he did say.

I believe they are his beliefs....

[DividedThigh]

I take his work at his word.

If you curse the cross of calvary, but before it and after the statement you praise Jesus for being a good man.

Does that make your statement less powerful.

That is why man will be judged for everyword.

He may have tried to not say what he did say.

I believe they are his beliefs....

have to agree with you neck, cant wait till the monday night april 21 game, talk to ya, dt

[ChristopherHall]

CH, Matthew 5:17-20 states 17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."

We see here clearly that the law is to be followed until heaven and earth pass away. The Pharisees were watering down the Law and Christ has come to bring it to it's fullness. Notice, Christ is referring to the Law and the Prophets.

Nowhere has anyone stated that the Law has passed away. The Law lays in wait during this “times of the gentiles” until our Lord returns and establishes the Kingdom. Then he shall judge according to the Law righteously…without the help of Reformed Presbyterianism. ;)

CH, you keep referring to the fact that you can point to history. Remember, history is what WAS and not necessarily what SHOULD have been. In my post that you ignored I said that many espoused monasticism to get away from the 'world' but that is not Biblical.

Separation isn’t monasticism. ;) I advocate separation from the world’s systems but not cloistered monasticism.

Did Jesus say his servants would fight? Yes or no?

You state that Christ fulfilled the ceremonial laws and national laws. Where do you get your Scriptural reference for 'national' laws being fulfilled?

Colossians 2:6-18
{2:6} As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord,
[so] walk ye in him: {2:7} Rooted and built up in him, and
stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding
therein with thanksgiving. {2:8} Beware lest any man spoil
you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition
of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after
Christ. {2:9} For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the
Godhead bodily. {2:10} And ye are complete in him, which
is the head of all principality and power: {2:11} In whom
also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without
hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the
circumcision of Christ: {2:12} Buried with him in baptism,
wherein also ye are risen with [him] through the faith of the
operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
{2:13} And you, being dead in your sins and the
uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together
with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; {2:14}
Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against
us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way,
nailing it to his cross; {2:15} [And] having spoiled
principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly,
triumphing over them in it. {2:16} Let no man therefore
judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday,
or of the new moon, or of the sabbath [days: ]{2:17} Which
are a shadow of things to come; but the body [is] of Christ.
{2:18} Let no man beguile you of your reward in a
voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding
into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up
by his fleshly mind,

This clearly abolishes ordinances contrary to the gentiles (i.e. ordinances of national Israel) such as dietary laws, holy day laws, holiday laws, etc. These laws were for National Israel. In addition there were Laws commanded specifically of the Levitical Priesthood, since we no longer serve under the Levitical priesthood such laws are also passed away for they can only be fulfilled as commanded of those living in national Israel.

Paul mentions much about civil government and the just ruler of it and that includes using the sword. Sounds like Christians can and should be involved in the civil process.

Sounds like? Ye do err knowing not the Scriptures. Paul wrote:

Romans 13:1-10
{13:1} Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers.
For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are
ordained of God. {13:2} Whosoever therefore resisteth the
power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist
shall receive to themselves ************ation. {13:3} For rulers are
not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then
not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou
shalt have praise of the same: {13:4} For 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. {13:5} Wherefore [ye] must needs be
subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
{13:6} For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are
God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
{13:7} Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom
tribute [is due;] custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear;
honour to whom honour. {13:8} Owe no man any thing, but
to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled
the law. {13:9} For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery,
Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear
false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if [there be] any
other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this
saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
{13:10} Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore
love [is] the fulfilling of the law.

Here Paul is addressing the church in Rome. He advocates that they be obedient to Roman authority (clearly anti-revolutionary) illustrating that even they rule according to God’s ordained purpose for bringing structure to society by punishing evil. Paul doesn’t advocate that Christians do such…he’s advocating that Christians peaceably obey the laws of even the Roman emperors. In addition Paul teaches them to pay taxes, something clearly bothering the conscience of the Roman body of believers. From Paul we can conclude that Christians are to respect authorities, obey the law, and pay our taxes. Paul doesn’t say it is ok for the Christian to use the sword. In fact in the first 200 years of Christianity any magistrate or soldier becoming a Christian had to relinquish their office so as to not be in a position to shed blood. This fueled accusations of Christianity being treasonous to the Roman government. Becoming a Christian was costly! Paul then speaks of the moral law of God and explains how it is fulfilled in loving one’s neighbor as one’s self.

Nothing advocating Christian Nationalism! In fact, Paul could have advocated activism or revolution against Roman despotism. Such would prove your point. However, we see Paul admonishing Christians to be peaceable, respecting, and obeying Roman authority. Such clears the conscience of the Christian seeing that we are not of this world.

Just because God doesn't not choose to have an earthly literal nation He still lays ground work on which to govern by. He did the same for gentiles in the OT days.

Since God doesn’t have a literal earthly nation…how do you suppose to literally enforce the Law of God as commanded by literal Old Testament National Israel?

Again, there are sins that are not mentioned in the NT that one has to use the OT to condemn them. To use your presupposition one cannot consistantly even call them sins.

All sins of a moral nature are condemned in the New Testament. Name one that isn’t?

[ReformedDave]

i know, keep that jazz playing bro, dt, lol

Dizzy Gillespie is da man!

[ChristopherHall]

You are about as subtle as horse exhaust.

That's because I'm not being subtle. You are. ;)

[ChristopherHall]

I take his work at his word.

If you curse the cross of calvary, but before it and after the statement you praise Jesus for being a good man.

Does that make your statement less powerful.

That is why man will be judged for everyword.

He may have tried to not say what he did say.

I believe they are his beliefs....

How did he end his sermon? Certainly one could accuse any preacher by using a snippet of any sermon. How did the sermon end. I vote we judge it in it's entirety.

[DividedThigh]

Dizzy Gillespie is da man!

i am a trumpet player from 6th grade on, love louis armstrong, love it, go man go, dt

[ChristopherHall]

Note to the reader: ReformedDave is in retreat. ;)

Meet the challenge RD. I was told you'd embarrass me...you're letting me down!

[ReformedDave]

Note to the reader: ReformedDave is in retreat. ;)

Meet the challenge RD. I was told you'd embarrass me...you're letting me down!

You didn't deal with the above post on Matthew 5.

[ReformedDave]

i am a trumpet player from 6th grade on, love louis armstrong, love it, go man go, dt

Agreed! The word 'great' is thrown around lightly. But LA is the spring from which all have come. Great tone, technique, and style. Nobody sounded like him though many have tried. His early records with King Oliver are priceless.

[ChristopherHall]

You didn't deal with the above post on Matthew 5.

Actually I did,

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showpost.php?p=423179&postcount=630

[ReformedDave]

Actually I did,

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showpost.php?p=423179&postcount=630

Sorry. Missed it.

[ChristopherHall]

Sorry. Missed it.

While you're reviewing it, you may want to read Acts chapter 2. Specifically verse 38. ;)

That would make for an interesting discussion also.

[DividedThigh]

Agreed! The word 'great' is thrown around lightly. But LA is the spring from which all have come. Great tone, technique, and style. Nobody sounded like him though many have tried. His early records with King Oliver are priceless.

i agree, always enjoyed him and i liked his singing too, lol, hang in there rd, ch has a tiger by the tail and dont know it, lol

[ChristopherHall]

Another interesting point to ponder (source cited):



"If we affirm that some wars are just, how can a Christian
know when a war is justifiable, especially in light of
governmental deception and the individual’s limited
information? In World War II, most Nazi soldiers thought
they were defending their homeland, race, and culture
against enemies that would destroy them if they were not
destroyed first. They usually did not know of the atrocities
committed by their own government. If we justify an
individual’s participation in killing simply because it
seems justifiable based on his limited knowledge, then
almost every soldier in every war is blameless. Even most
Nazi and Communist soldiers have sincerely believed
their cause was right. The only way for an individual to
know with certainty that a war is just is if he fights for a
theocracy, a government with God as the Commanderin-
Chief. No such government exists today or will exist
until Christ returns to earth, and at that time God Himself
will do all the fighting necessary." - David K. Bernard, Practical Holiness

[ChristopherHall]

In light of classical Pentecostal doctrine and teaching...where would God and we as the people of God stand on America's dropping the atom bomb killing masses of innocent civilians?

I've never thought to ask this question but; did we warn the civilian population of Japan in any way?

[ChristopherHall]

Chosenbyone, you still there?

[ReformedDave]

As I haven't figured out this cut-n-paste thing let me try to respond in a cogent manner.

Nowhere has anyone stated that the Law has passed away. The Law lays in wait during this “times of the gentiles” until our Lord returns and establishes the Kingdom. Then he shall judge according to the Law righteously…without the help of Reformed Presbyterianism.

You yourself have stated as such many times. Notice that not one of the smallest part of the law will be done away with till heaven and earth are. It is in effect now. Jesus was instructing people in the fullness of the law that the Pharisees had perverted. Christ goes on to say "you've heard it said but I say..." He corrected the misconception that was advocated by the teachers of that day. He wasn't changing the ten commandments.

Separation isn’t monasticism. I advocate separation from the world’s systems but not cloistered monasticism.

My point is that just because the church did something a certain way it doesn't mean that it SHOULD have been done this way.


Colossians 2:6-18
{2:6} As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord,
[so] walk ye in him: {2:7} Rooted and built up in him, and
stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding
therein with thanksgiving. {2:8} Beware lest any man spoil
you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition
of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after
Christ. {2:9} For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the
Godhead bodily. {2:10} And ye are complete in him, which
is the head of all principality and power: {2:11} In whom
also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without
hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the
circumcision of Christ: {2:12} Buried with him in baptism,
wherein also ye are risen with [him] through the faith of the
operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
{2:13} And you, being dead in your sins and the
uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together
with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; {2:14}
Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against
us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way,
nailing it to his cross; {2:15} [And] having spoiled
principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly,
triumphing over them in it. {2:16} Let no man therefore
judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday,
or of the new moon, or of the sabbath [days: ]{2:17} Which
are a shadow of things to come; but the body [is] of Christ.
{2:18} Let no man beguile you of your reward in a
voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding
into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up
by his fleshly mind,

This clearly abolishes ordinances contrary to the gentiles (i.e. ordinances of national Israel) such as dietary laws, holy day laws, holiday laws, etc. These laws were for National Israel. In addition there were Laws commanded specifically of the Levitical Priesthood, since we no longer serve under the Levitical priesthood such laws are also passed away for they can only be fulfilled as commanded of those living in national Israel.

These laws were shadows pointing to what Christ accomplished of the cross and were ceremonial in nature. Actually as a side note, God destroyed some gentile countries that did not conform to His law. They had nothing to do with the civil authority.

Nothing advocating Christian Nationalism! In fact, Paul could have advocated activism or revolution against Roman despotism. Such would prove your point. However, we see Paul admonishing Christians to be peaceable, respecting, and obeying Roman authority. Such clears the conscience of the Christian seeing that we are not of this world.

I have never advocated a state in the line of Israel. I do believe that it is possible for a state to make as it's authority the Word of God.... and one day the world will all acknowledge that Jesus is sitting at the right hand of the Father now!

Sounds like? Ye do err knowing not the Scriptures. Paul wrote:

Romans 13:1-10
{13:1} Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers.
For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are
ordained of God. {13:2} Whosoever therefore resisteth the
power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist
shall receive to themselves ************ation. {13:3} For rulers are
not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then
not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou
shalt have praise of the same: {13:4} For 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. {13:5} Wherefore [ye] must needs be
subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
{13:6} For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are
God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
{13:7} Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom
tribute [is due;] custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear;
honour to whom honour. {13:8} Owe no man any thing, but
to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled
the law. {13:9} For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery,
Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear
false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if [there be] any
other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this
saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
{13:10} Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore
love [is] the fulfilling of the law.

Here Paul is addressing the church in Rome. He advocates that they be obedient to Roman authority (clearly anti-revolutionary) illustrating that even they rule according to God’s ordained purpose for bringing structure to society by punishing evil. Paul doesn’t advocate that Christians do such…he’s advocating that Christians peaceably obey the laws of even the Roman emperors. In addition Paul teaches them to pay taxes, something clearly bothering the conscience of the Roman body of believers. From Paul we can conclude that Christians are to respect authorities, obey the law, and pay our taxes. Paul doesn’t say it is ok for the Christian to use the sword. In fact in the first 200 years of Christianity any magistrate or soldier becoming a Christian had to relinquish their office so as to not be in a position to shed blood. This fueled accusations of Christianity being treasonous to the Roman government. Becoming a Christian was costly! Paul then speaks of the moral law of God and explains how it is fulfilled in loving one’s neighbor as one’s self.

Nothing advocating Christian Nationalism! In fact, Paul could have advocated activism or revolution against Roman despotism. Such would prove your point. However, we see Paul admonishing Christians to be peaceable, respecting, and obeying Roman authority. Such clears the conscience of the Christian seeing that we are not of this world.

You read too much into the text. First Paul never says that the civil magistrate has to be a non Christian. It is alright for a Christian to use the sword as long as he is part of the civil magistrate and uses it according to God's word. Show me where a sinner is the ONLY one who can rule. You keep pointing out history as it is automatically the correct practice
of Christianity. Wasn't the centurion told to treat people fairly and to be satisfied with his pay? He was not told to change his job. I don't believe in rebellion by the sword and that Christians must rise up and take over by force.

By the time John wrote his epistles gnosticism had come into the church and brought with it the spiritual/secular false dichotomy which is still with us. Many in the early church even denied that Christ had come bodily as the body is sinful. When Scripture uses the term "world" it is used in several different contexts. 1 John 2 states "15 Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16 For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions—is not from the Father but is from the world. 17 And the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever." Here it is obvious that the 'world' is not a piece of earth but a philosophy of life that is ungodly and the fruits of it are "the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions". If it were talking about the literal earth it would have to include much more than those things and would include things that we are to love.

Now in Genesis we do have the creation mandate to take dominion over the earth and in Mathew 28 we are given guidance in how to do that. You say Since God doesn’t have a literal earthly nation…how do you suppose to literally enforce the Law of God as commanded by literal Old Testament National Israel?My response would be that we're to take dominion through evangelism. From the bottom-up! As more of the 'world' becomes believers it will become easier to form our laws with Biblical principles and to live accordingly.

All sins of a moral nature are condemned in the New Testament. Name one that isn’t? Bestiality.

[Ferd]

In light of classical Pentecostal doctrine and teaching...where would God and we as the people of God stand on America's dropping the atom bomb killing masses of innocent civilians?

I've never thought to ask this question but; did we warn the civilian population of Japan in any way?

Chris, to begin with, I dont agree with anybody 100% of the time. David Bernard would be in that group of "Anybody"

The warning to Japan was to the government. It was direct and included a statement that Japan would face certain distruction. No mention of the Atom bomb was given.

when our planes flew over Hiroshima and Nagaskai we flew in very small formations so as not to make them think it was a bombing run. consequintly the Japanese did not send up fighters to intercept, nor did they fire guns at the planes.

I still believe America was justified. the consequinces of not using the A-bomb would have been devistating.

the invasion would have cost close to (if not) a million American lives, it would have cost hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives. It would have prolonged the war which would have led to extended famine in Japan.

It would have brought the Russians into the Japanese theator causeing extended conflict with the communists post WW2.

If I veiw the action from 1944 understanding of the intelegence, attitudes and experience, it was the right thing to do.

If I view it from 2008 understanding of the intelegence and with our vastly different moral perspective I still believe that the use of the Atom bomb reduced both the losses of American lives AND innocent Japanese lives.

Additionally I do not believe that America would have been justified in taking a moralist approach and remained unengaged in the war from the beginning.

Had we simply chosen not to respond to Japans attack at Pearl, they would eventually invaded the west coast.

At the time, American military experts felt like they would reach the rockies before we could stop them.

Had we not engaged in Europe, It is very likely that with only 1 front, the Germans would have dismantled the russians, and the "Final Solution" would have cost entire races their exestance. we are talking hundred(s) of millions of lives.

There is no scenario where I find it convenient for my faith in God to bring me to a moral perspective that allows untold distruction to occur while I maintain my "salvation".

[DividedThigh]

Chris, to begin with, I dont agree with anybody 100% of the time. David Bernard would be in that group of "Anybody"

The warning to Japan was to the government. It was direct and included a statement that Japan would face certain distruction. No mention of the Atom bomb was given.

when our planes flew over Hiroshima and Nagaskai we flew in very small formations so as not to make them think it was a bombing run. consequintly the Japanese did not send up fighters to intercept, nor did they fire guns at the planes.

I still believe America was justified. the consequinces of not using the A-bomb would have been devistating.

the invasion would have cost close to (if not) a million American lives, it would have cost hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives. It would have prolonged the war which would have led to extended famine in Japan.

It would have brought the Russians into the Japanese theator causeing extended conflict with the communists post WW2.

If I veiw the action from 1944 understanding of the intelegence, attitudes and experience, it was the right thing to do.

If I view it from 2008 understanding of the intelegence and with our vastly different moral perspective I still believe that the use of the Atom bomb reduced both the losses of American lives AND innocent Japanese lives.

Additionally I do not believe that America would have been justified in taking a moralist approach and remained unengaged in the war from the beginning.

Had we simply chosen not to respond to Japans attack at Pearl, they would eventually invaded the west coast.

At the time, American military experts felt like they would reach the rockies before we could stop them.

Had we not engaged in Europe, It is very likely that with only 1 front, the Germans would have dismantled the russians, and the "Final Solution" would have cost entire races their exestance. we are talking hundred(s) of millions of lives.

There is no scenario where I find it convenient for my faith in God to bring me to a moral perspective that allows untold distruction to occur while I maintain my "salvation".

all good points bro, wasted on deaf ears but good, 1945 bro, just a hint from an ex history teacher, dt

[COOPER]

:friendChris, to begin with, I dont agree with anybody 100% of the time. David Bernard would be in that group of "Anybody"

The warning to Japan was to the government. It was direct and included a statement that Japan would face certain distruction. No mention of the Atom bomb was given.

when our planes flew over Hiroshima and Nagaskai we flew in very small formations so as not to make them think it was a bombing run. consequintly the Japanese did not send up fighters to intercept, nor did they fire guns at the planes.

I still believe America was justified. the consequinces of not using the A-bomb would have been devistating.

the invasion would have cost close to (if not) a million American lives, it would have cost hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives. It would have prolonged the war which would have led to extended famine in Japan.

It would have brought the Russians into the Japanese theator causeing extended conflict with the communists post WW2.

If I veiw the action from 1944 understanding of the intelegence, attitudes and experience, it was the right thing to do.

If I view it from 2008 understanding of the intelegence and with our vastly different moral perspective I still believe that the use of the Atom bomb reduced both the losses of American lives AND innocent Japanese lives.

Additionally I do not believe that America would have been justified in taking a moralist approach and remained unengaged in the war from the beginning.

Had we simply chosen not to respond to Japans attack at Pearl, they would eventually invaded the west coast.

At the time, American military experts felt like they would reach the rockies before we could stop them.

Had we not engaged in Europe, It is very likely that with only 1 front, the Germans would have dismantled the russians, and the "Final Solution" would have cost entire races their exestance. we are talking hundred(s) of millions of lives.

There is no scenario where I find it convenient for my faith in God to bring me to a moral perspective that allows untold distruction to occur while I maintain my "salvation".
:bliss

[BrotherEastman]

I have a question. If the atomic bombs were dropped in 1945 on both Hiroshima, and Nagasaki; then why would God punish this generation of Americans for what the previous generation had done? If it were so wrong, I believe that God would've judged that generation, not this one. What proof does JW have that the previous generation was or wasn't judged? Of course, this question applies to anyone who can answer it, but I'd really like to see Chris answer.

[DividedThigh]

I have a question. If the atomic bombs were dropped in 1945 on both Hiroshima, and Nagasaki; then why would God punish this generation of Americans for what the previous generation had done? If it were so wrong, I believe that God would've judged that generation, not this one. What proof does JW have that the previous generation was or wasn't judged? Of course, this question applies to anyone who can answer it, but I'd really like to see Chris answer.

well bro e, it will be interesting to see what he says, but no that is not what is happening, god is not punishing this generateion for some persons irrational thinking, lol,dt

[Rico]

I have a question. If the atomic bombs were dropped in 1945 on both Hiroshima, and Nagasaki; then why would God punish this generation of Americans for what the previous generation had done? If it were so wrong, I believe that God would've judged that generation, not this one. What proof does JW have that the previous generation was or wasn't judged? Of course, this question applies to anyone who can answer it, but I'd really like to see Chris answer.

Brother, you are forgetting that God is a long suffering God, especially when it comes to nations.

[Ferd]

all good points bro, wasted on deaf ears but good, 1945 bro, just a hint from an ex history teacher, dt

see what happens when you ballpark dates?

[ChristopherHall]

As I haven't figured out this cut-n-paste thing let me try to respond in a cogent manner.

You yourself have stated as such many times. Notice that not one of the smallest part of the law will be done away with till heaven and earth are.

No one is saying that the Law was “done away”. The Law has been laid in store for the time of the Kingdom when Christ shall use said Law righteously to rule the nations.

It is in effect now.

Demonstrate this by showing BIBLICAL examples of the New Testament church stoning sinners, using violence, advocating war, and resisting tyranny through revolution. Give BIBLE. If this were so we would see it in the first century Church. There are plenty of examples of Christians not using violence, revolution, activism, or lethal force throughout the New Testament. We also read an entire epistle where Paul rebukes Judaizers and those who would bring the Law upon gentiles under the New Covenant.

If the Law in its entirety is in effect the Church is required to officiate a rebuilt temple! That was never the fact in the NT! In fact we see just the opposite. Also you would have circumcision be required of us to fulfill the Law, failing to see it spiritually fulfilled in Christ and applied via water baptism in Jesus name.

Jesus was instructing people in the fullness of the law that the Pharisees had perverted. Christ goes on to say "you've heard it said but I say..." He corrected the misconception that was advocated by the teachers of that day. He wasn't changing the ten commandments.

First, the eye for an eye passage isn’t in the ten commandments. Second, Christ called his followers to loving God with all their hearts and loving their neighbors as themselves. In these two things they fulfilled the purpose of God’s Law. Jesus never advocated Christian Nationalist nation worship. IT IS WRITTEN:

John 18:36
“Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world:
if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants
fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is
my kingdom not from hence.”

We who are of HIS kingdom do not fight. Nor are we of this world and this world’s nations. We are not this world’s pawns. We are not this world’s politicians. We are dead to this world. This world and all that is in it is passing away. Your Christian Nationalist Utopia is a farce that will not be realized until the Lord Jesus returns in power and glory and establishes his Kingdom.
My point is that just because the church did something a certain way it doesn't mean that it SHOULD have been done this way.

Like becoming Trinitarian, marrying Christianity with the Roman government, and forcing ancient dominionism upon an entire continent with war, execution, extortion, and inquisitions?

Your doctrine is an ancient lie that has seen ascendancy in dark days when the supposed “orthodoxy” was enforced by the power of the sword. History testifies against you.

These laws were shadows pointing to what Christ accomplished of the cross and were ceremonial in nature. Actually as a side note, God destroyed some gentile countries that did not conform to His law. They had nothing to do with the civil authority.

Nothing in the New Testament suggests that Christians enforce OT law by use of civil government. Instead Christianity is a universal and spiritual kingdom working like leaven among all nations of this earth until our Lord comes and puts them to rest, subjugating them under his power. All Christians are to live peaceably and in obedience to the authorities until Christ returns.

We are in the salvation business…not the nation building business. You reduce Christianity to a political philosophy, a theocratic fascism.

I have never advocated a state in the line of Israel. I do believe that it is possible for a state to make as it's authority the Word of God.... and one day the world will all acknowledge that Jesus is sitting at the right hand of the Father now!

Surely you jest. Israel couldn’t even properly make their authority the Word of God…and that’s with all the mighty displays of his power in the OT. What in the world makes you think a gentile nation can accomplish what Israel couldn’t and was in fact destroyed for failing to do?

When Christ returns the mystery of iniquity will have run its course. Only a remnant church will remain. It will appear that he will not even find faith in the earth. Christ will establish his Kingdom and rule seated upon the throne of David and Israel shall be re-established in righteousness and we shall rule and reign with him. The World will acknowledge his power because he will personally subjugate all kingdoms to his rule. No need for Christian nationalism.

You read too much into the text. First Paul never says that the civil magistrate has to be a non Christian.

The point is that in context Paul is addressing a non-Christian emperor. In fact, Paul is advocating living peaceably under a tyrant, Nero. This would be fundamentally opposed to the Law of God and if you were correct Paul would have advocated rebellion and the institution of Biblical Law.

It is alright for a Christian to use the sword as long as he is part of the civil magistrate and uses it according to God's word.

The Christian wasn’t called to rule over the nation as the rulers of the gentiles do. We are a separate people who are part of a spiritual kingdom. You will remember that Satan tempted Christ with the kingdoms of this world. Dominionism is Satan’s tempting the church to grasp earthly kingdoms. Historically Christians refused public office or refused to use the sword when serving in public office thereby bringing public policy in harmony with the gospel. One may argue for the use of the sword to enforce justice. Again, that’s this world’s matter. If war is necessary one might argue for “just war” standards by which to wage war. However, with the deception abounding in our world a Christian does well not to involve themselves seeing that their government may be lying to them. David K. Bernard wrote something interesting,

The New Testament admonishes us to pay taxes, to
submit to governmental authority, and to pray for civil
leaders (Romans 13:1-7; I Timothy 2:1-3; Titus 3:1; I Peter
2:13-17), but it does not tell us to bear arms to support the
government. Although the Roman Empire was a pagan
government and a foreign dictatorship, Jesus did not
endorse Jewish rebellion against it, but taught submission
to civil government (Matthew 5:40-41; 17:24-27;
22:17-21). When slaves converted to Christianity, Paul
and Peter did not condone rebellion against their masters
but taught them to serve their masters, even harsh
masters, as they would the Lord (Ephesians 6:5; I Peter
2:18-21). – David K. Bernard, Practical Holiness

I served in the military and fought to have my MOS changed from 19K Tank Crewman (which I signed up for while unsaved) to 91B10 Combat Medical Specialist after becoming saved. Did I serve? Yes. Was I loyal? Yes. Was I a combatant? No. My duty was to preserve American lives and even the lives of wounded enemy….even if it meant risking my own life. I take this charge VERY seriously. We as Christians may serve no matter how dangerous…but not to the point of blood.

Show me where a sinner is the ONLY one who can rule. You keep pointing out history as it is automatically the correct practice of Christianity.

No. It is the outcome of a consistent Christian ethic.

[ChristopherHall]

Wasn't the centurion told to treat people fairly and to be satisfied with his pay? He was not told to change his job.

Yes. And history will show that centurions who became Christians were executed by Rome because they refused to shed blood for the empire. If a Christian centurion was ordered to slaughter a village of people resisting Roman authority, would they do it? What if a sizeable number of those in said village were his Christian brothers and sisters? If it is ok for the centurion to kill for government…can he lie, steal, and commit adultery for his government? And if he follows the orders of his government believing he is doing a noble deed and his government has lied did he not become a pawn of said worldly power and thereby responsible for placing himself in said position to commit grave sin against God by slaughtering unjustifiably? And if said centurion was marching proudly in Rome’s army and called to battle an enemy nation on the battle field…should he meet another convert of Christ’s serving in that country’s military would it glorify God that the slay one another by morning’s light? And if one is justified and the other is not, how do we determine which soldier shouldn’t have committed themselves to serve?

To treat people fairly would be to refrain from killing them in the interests of earthly nations…even if it called for the charge of treason…and Roman execution.

I don't believe in rebellion by the sword and that Christians must rise up and take over by force.

Ascendancy through peace and enforcement by sword. Islam teaches, “I will kiss thy hand today, that I might break it tomorrow.” How is this any different?

By the time John wrote his epistles gnosticism had come into the church and brought with it the spiritual/secular false dichotomy which is still with us.

Gnosticism wasn’t an issue of “civil law”. Gnosticism was a metaphysical structure of belief pitching spirit against flesh. Such called for extreme asceticism or antinomianism, binding one to purification rituals or releasing one to commit debauchery believing that the spirit was untainted by the flesh. You’re twisting both Christianity and Gnosticism to suit your purposes.

Many in the early church even denied that Christ had come bodily as the body is sinful.

Again, unrelated to Dominionism.

When Scripture uses the term "world" it is used in several different contexts. 1 John 2 states "15 Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16 For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions—is not from the Father but is from the world. 17 And the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever." Here it is obvious that the 'world' is not a piece of earth but a philosophy of life that is ungodly and the fruits of it are "the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions". If it were talking about the literal earth it would have to include much more than those things and would include things that we are to love.

It is written,

John 18:36
{18:36} Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world:
if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants
fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is
my kingdom not from hence. {18:37} Pilate therefore said
unto him, Art thou a king

Also consider,

John 6:15
{6:15} When Jesus therefore perceived that they would
come and take him by force, to make him a king, he
departed again into a mountain himself alone.

Christ isn’t after an earthly Kingdom…not until he returns in power and glory.

Now in Genesis we do have the creation mandate to take dominion over the earth and in Mathew 28 we are given guidance in how to do that. You say My response would be that we're to take dominion through evangelism. From the bottom-up! As more of the 'world' becomes believers it will become easier to form our laws with Biblical principles and to live accordingly.

Adam was granted dominion over the earth (i.e. the land, the garden as part of his charge to “keep” it). This doesn’t speak of Adam being given authority over other people, there were no other people.

Bestiality.

Wherever the term “fornication” is used we must realize it includes the entire gamut of sexual sin as defined by Scripture. Also since bestiality was a common practice in idolatrous worship one could include references to idolatry,
Acts 15:20
20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. (KJV)
Gal 5:19
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, (KJV)
Gal 5:21
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. (KJV)
Eph 5:5-6
5 For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
6 Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. (KJV)

[Ferd]

I have a question. If the atomic bombs were dropped in 1945 on both Hiroshima, and Nagasaki; then why would God punish this generation of Americans for what the previous generation had done? If it were so wrong, I believe that God would've judged that generation, not this one. What proof does JW have that the previous generation was or wasn't judged? Of course, this question applies to anyone who can answer it, but I'd really like to see Chris answer.

Easty, God punishes nations when "their cup of iniquity" is full. (see Amaleck)

I do believe that the Civil War was the judgement of God on America for the sin of slavery, remember that it was not the founding fathers generation(s) that suffered. the Civil war started 89 years after the Declaration of Independence.

So in part one must agree that the generation that sins isnt always the one that is punished. God allows time for the cup to be emptied in repentance or filled before he decides to forgo judgement or execute it on a nation.

But also understand that when God punishes a nation, it is total. Anyone who thinks 9/11 was Gods judgement has a small opinion of the Judgement of God.

Compair the loss of 3,000 on 9/11 to OT judement. Amaleck was distroyed in total. God said kill their men, women, children, sheep, goats, cows, and everything that lives. Israel and Judah were sent into slavery.

If one believes as I do that the Civil War was the judgement of God on America, consider that more Americans were killed/died from that war than in all the other wars we have fought combined!

Consider also that if Bombing Japan was a "sin" in Gods eyes, and sistimic/institutionalized racism that existed in America until the 1960's was a sin in Gods eyes, then it stands to reason that God in his grace gives a nation to repent.

Consider the shifting attitudes of Americans toward wholesale war, that in Iraq, we do not bomb civilian populations (turning a different direction from the past).

Consider the landmark legal decisions of the supreme court overturning institutionalized racism (sperate but equal), the vast amount of law that has been passed to counter racism. Consider that while we still have predjudice/racism today (read Rico's thread, it is brilliant), we are nowhere near as bad as we were in 1940 or even in 1980.

If God provides time for a nation to turn, then this nation has in many ways either done so or is doing so. And thus must be seen by God as worthy of more time.

Clearly then 9/11 cannot be the judement of God.

but that's just my 2 cents.

[ChristopherHall]

Chris, to begin with, I dont agree with anybody 100% of the time. David Bernard would be in that group of "Anybody"

The warning to Japan was to the government. It was direct and included a statement that Japan would face certain distruction. No mention of the Atom bomb was given.

However, no warning was given to the population to provide them opportunity to flee. No parents or children warned to flee the cities.

I still believe America was justified. the consequinces of not using the A-bomb would have been devistating.

Devastating according to whom? Us or God? Would it have been worth loosing another 500,000 or more in an effort to spare innocent lives? Those are deep philosophical questions I think anyone with a conscience would ask themselves. Remember soldiers sign up to fight…children playing on play grounds didn’t. The question becomes what is more precious, the unsuspecting civilian families of Japan or enlisted American soldiers? Who’s job was it to fight and die?

As a Christian…I wouldn’t have been able to drop the bomb. I would have declined participation in the action.

the invasion would have cost close to (if not) a million American lives, it would have cost hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives. It would have prolonged the war which would have led to extended famine in Japan.

Probable…but speculation. We’ll never know how it may have turned out.

It would have brought the Russians into the Japanese theator causeing extended conflict with the communists post WW2.

I can see that. However, that is the world’s problem. We do well to pray for God’s will and refrain from blood shed.

If I veiw the action from 1944 understanding of the intelegence, attitudes and experience, it was the right thing to do.

If I view it from 2008 understanding of the intelegence and with our vastly different moral perspective I still believe that the use of the Atom bomb reduced both the losses of American lives AND innocent Japanese lives.

The entire war is a symptom of man’s sin. Nothing involved was the “right thing to do”. The baseline is God’s righteousness standard of perfection….not our worldly number games no matter how it makes us feel better. Honestly, my carnal mind agrees with you. But God doesn’t see things the way we see them. The entire war from beginning to end was evil for evil. In a world submitted to God such would be impossibility.

Additionally I do not believe that America would have been justified in taking a moralist approach and remained unengaged in the war from the beginning.

The issue for me isn’t so much America’s involvement it’s “Christian” involvement and approval. I was taught that Christians should issue an indictment against the world and her wars…not choose sides.

Had we simply chosen not to respond to Japans attack at Pearl, they would eventually invaded the west coast.

At the time, American military experts felt like they would reach the rockies before we could stop them.

Had we not engaged in Europe, It is very likely that with only 1 front, the Germans would have dismantled the russians, and the "Final Solution" would have cost entire races their exestance. we are talking hundred(s) of millions of lives.

There is no scenario where I find it convenient for my faith in God to bring me to a moral perspective that allows untold distruction to occur while I maintain my "salvation".

Yes. Agreed. But that is an issue for the world’s governments to address. Perhaps they (the Allies) addressed it the best they could. My issue is the part of the “Christian”.

I hope you see my concern.

[ReformedDave]

Yes. And history will show that centurions who became Christians were executed by Rome because they refused to shed blood for the empire. If a Christian centurion was ordered to slaughter a village of people resisting Roman authority, would they do it? What if a sizeable number of those in said village were his Christian brothers and sisters? If it is ok for the centurion to kill for government…can he lie, steal, and commit adultery for his government? And if he follows the orders of his government believing he is doing a noble deed and his government has lied did he not become a pawn of said worldly power and thereby responsible for placing himself in said position to commit grave sin against God by slaughtering unjustifiably? And if said centurion was marching proudly in Rome’s army and called to battle an enemy nation on the battle field…should he meet another convert of Christ’s serving in that country’s military would it glorify God that the slay one another by morning’s light? And if one is justified and the other is not, how do we determine which soldier shouldn’t have committed themselves to serve?

To treat people fairly would be to refrain from killing them in the interests of earthly nations…even if it called for the charge of treason…and Roman execution.

I completely believe in a just punishment system and Scriptures tell what that is. I believe Scripture has set forth criteria and unjustifiable killing is a sin by an individual or state. Again, your anecdotal history is not authoritative. Why can't a Christian be a civil ruler? God can ONLY use SINNERS to administer the proper use of the sword?

Ascendancy through peace and enforcement by sword. Islam teaches, “I will kiss thy hand today, that I might break it tomorrow.” How is this any different?

I miss wrote. What I meant was is that Christians are not to be rebellious and that civil disobedience is allowable only after ALL other means are exhausted. The objectionable law would have to personally impact me and my Christian practice.

Gnosticism wasn’t an issue of “civil law”. Gnosticism was a metaphysical structure of belief pitching spirit against flesh. Such called for extreme asceticism or antinomianism, binding one to purification rituals or releasing one to commit debauchery believing that the spirit was untainted by the flesh. You’re twisting both Christianity and Gnosticism to suit your purposes. Not really. This mindset has created a worldview where the Christian refuses to engage culture. You are a product of that thinking, not directly of coarse. You seem to espouse a belief where the Christian doesn't engage society in all levels. It is a form of antinomianism and God is not truly Lord of all. The body, and the world is seen as evil and we're to leave it alone or shun it, withdraw from politics, assume a 'neutral' position, etc.

Christ isn’t after an earthly Kingdom…not until he returns in power and glory.

Of coarse in my escatological position He is ruling now. "In earth as it is in heaven"

Wherever the term “fornication” is used we must realize it includes the entire gamut of sexual sin as defined by Scripture. Also since bestiality was a common practice in idolatrous worship one could include references to idolatry,
Acts 15:20
20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. (KJV)
Gal 5:19
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, (KJV)
Gal 5:21
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. (KJV)
Eph 5:5-6
5 For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
6 Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. (KJV)

Really nothing to do with bestiality....Thank God for Leviticus.

[Praxeas]

Biblically speaking, don't judgments of this sort to nations happen only AFTER a prophetic warning to the nations? Those judgments were recorded. The only judgments I know of for a fact are God's ordained are those in the bible

[Ferd]

I hope you see my concern.

Chris, I do see your concern. with respect, I disagree with your end conclusion. I do not believe that Christians can afford to simply step aside and do nothing.

We fundimentally disagree. I do understand your perspective.

let me ask you this. If you feel so strongly about it, how then do you participate in the political arena at all?

[Ferd]

Biblically speaking, don't judgments of this sort to nations happen only AFTER a prophetic warning to the nations? Those judgments were recorded. The only judgments I know of for a fact are God's ordained are those in the bible

Praxeas, I suspect that if you were to get into a time machine and travel back to 1842, you would find more than a few preachers warning that slavery was a national sin.

I suspect that God did warn. Understand that England effectively abolised slavery a hundred years before the American Civil war.

and I dont think there is a recoding of Amaleck being given a warning.

[ChristopherHall]

I have a question. If the atomic bombs were dropped in 1945 on both Hiroshima, and Nagasaki; then why would God punish this generation of Americans for what the previous generation had done? If it were so wrong, I believe that God would've judged that generation, not this one. What proof does JW have that the previous generation was or wasn't judged? Of course, this question applies to anyone who can answer it, but I'd really like to see Chris answer.

Bro. Eastman,

I personally don’t believe that God would punish this generation of Americans for what the previous generation has done. However, I do think God would punish us for an attitude of superiority and hubris, proudly touting the horrible things we had to do as something wonderful and good.

I think the war we are currently in is a judgment against the carnality of the American CHURCH. God is focused upon his people. But the church is failing in her mission and the nation is at stake. God will judge sin. God isn’t concerned with a “Christian government”…he wants a Christian people. We are failing to reach our country. God is letting us know he isn’t going to wait much longer. We have to reach our communities with the gospel before it’s too late. That’s the only thing that will stay the hand of God. And it has nothing to do with Democrat or Republican. It has to do with reconciling men to God through the preached gospel. I think less that 1% of Americans are Apostolic. And we want to argue over television and the standards of our self righteousness. Dude….God isn’t playing.

We’re more political than spiritual. Thanks to our marriage to Dominionism. More people will vote Republican in elections than go door knocking within the next four years.

That’s the problem as I see it.

[HeavenlyOne]

Please present physical violence, use of lethal force, revolution, and/or war as being advocated or presented by example among those living under the New Covenant in the New Testament Church. Please commit to not posting until you do. That will settle the issue. ;)

The question above is misleading, but in another post, you asked if Jesus would tell His servants to fight.

I present the following scripture.

Jesus speaking--

Lu 22:36
Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

Why would he tell people to buy a sword, to filet their fish with???

His disciples even carried swords. Not once did Jesus tell them to get rid of it.

[ChristopherHall]

Chris, I do see your concern. with respect, I disagree with your end conclusion. I do not believe that Christians can afford to simply step aside and do nothing.

Christians do better to pray for all involved than to pick sides and kill for the interests of worldly powers. It may be that America experienced victories that spared live on account of Christians objecting to combat and praying for all involved.

let me ask you this. If you feel so strongly about it, how then do you participate in the political arena at all?

I typically vote Republican I just have this feeling down in my soul that a Republican victory will be very bad for our nation. When it comes to candidates I value honesty and sincerety over rather the politician has checked all the boxes on some test we give them on the issues. I feel Obama (though I definately have some disagreements with him, his church, and even his pastor) is the most sincere of those running. Hillary is largely concerned with reviving American prosperity and perpetuating the Clinton legacy. McCain strike me as a man who is a hireling of corporate lobbyists.

So I feel that I would do best by my own heart to vote for Obama. But...some things do give me pause and as more and more is revealed about all candidates I reserve the right to change my mind. But I'm nearly certain that I will not vote for McCain.

[ChristopherHall]

Biblically speaking, don't judgments of this sort to nations happen only AFTER a prophetic warning to the nations? Those judgments were recorded. The only judgments I know of for a fact are God's ordained are those in the bible

I think God warned us during the Clinton Presidency but it went unheard by most.

[HeavenlyOne]

I think God warned us during the Clinton Presidency but it went unheard by most.

Another one of those 'gut feelings', I suppose??

[Praxeas]

I think God warned us during the Clinton Presidency but it went unheard by most.
Subjectivity. You "think"....but we need to KNOW. Israel KNEW when Elijah or Elisha spoke. Ninevah KNEW when Jonah spoke...

[ChristopherHall]

The question above is misleading, but in another post, you asked if Jesus would tell His servants to fight.

I present the following scripture.

Jesus speaking--

Lu 22:36
Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

Why would he tell people to buy a sword, to filet their fish with???

His disciples even carried swords. Not once did Jesus tell them to get rid of it.

In our modern world we think of a sword as something to kill with. However, in the ancient world it was used to protect one's self on perilous journeys. Traveling long expanses of wilderness presented dangers ranging from lions to bears in biblical times. Christ's statement may also have been a figure of speech indicating that the time was coming when the disciples would face fearce opposition to their preaching the gospe. This would explain why when they left to literally obey him and brought two swords Jesus said, "It is enough." It's possible that they misunderstood him as was pretty common with them. Jesus rebuked Peter strongly for using the sword against another person and instead sought to heal the man Peter was willing to engage in mortal combat with. When the details are considered one is hard pressed to demonstrate that Jesus wanted them to pack swords to slice up the Romans. Besides...two was enough in Christ's eyes. It's unclear as to if Jesus meant that the two swords were enough for the group of twelve, sufficient to protect them from beasts as they traveled or if the statement, "It is enough." is aimed at restraining their actions as though they misunderstood him. If viewed in this way Christ's words, "It is enough.", would be a strong indicator that they were to leave the swords alone. However, Peter, in his carnality, chose to secretely carry a sword with him. Well intentioned of course, intending to defend Jesus and protect him from what was indeed his mission...which was to die for mankind.

Hense we see carnal reasoning and the useage of violence contrasted with the surrender of God's will and purpose no matter how dreadful.

[Ferd]

Christians do better to pray for all involved than to pick sides and kill for the interests of worldly powers. It may be that America experienced victories that spared live on account of Christians objecting to combat and praying for all involved.



I typically vote Republican I just have this feeling down in my soul that a Republican victory will be very bad for our nation. When it comes to candidates I value honesty and sincerety over rather the politician has checked all the boxes on some test we give them on the issues. I feel Obama (though I definately have some disagreements with him, his church, and even his pastor) is the most sincere of those running. Hillary is largely concerned with reviving American prosperity and perpetuating the Clinton legacy. McCain strike me as a man who is a hireling of corporate lobbyists.

So I feel that I would do best by my own heart to vote for Obama. But...some things do give me pause and as more and more is revealed about all candidates I reserve the right to change my mind. But I'm nearly certain that I will not vote for McCain.

While we dont agree, I respect your honsty in the answer here about who you are voting for and why, but that isnt my question.

the argument you have been making about what our role as Christians is, seems at odds with being involved politically at all.

[ChristopherHall]

Another one of those 'gut feelings', I suppose??

Yep. LOL

Al Queda and Bin Laden were threatening us quite a bit under Clinton's watch. There was a story about an FBI agent, John O'Neil who was trying desperately to prove the threat these guys posed to the US...but his warnings when unheeded and they actually shut down his investigation. He later left the FBI and became security at the WTC. Ironically...he died in the 9/11 attacks. He never knew it...but he was fighting to save his own life. It's a true but facinating and disturbing story. Check it out if you have high speed internet....

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/view/

A line in the spiritual journey of our nation was crossed on 9/11. Regardless as to who becomes President I feel in my spirit things don't look bright for our nation.

[ChristopherHall]

While we dont agree, I respect your honsty in the answer here about who you are voting for and why, but that isnt my question.

the argument you have been making about what our role as Christians is, seems at odds with being involved politically at all.

I personally see and accept Christian participation in all matters accept in the personal act of taking a life. I was a medic. I understand risking one's life in service to one's country. But to participate on such a level as to serving specifically for the sole purpose of taking life...I object.

[Ferd]

I personally see and accept Christian participation in all matters accept in the personal act of taking a life. I was a medic. I understand risking one's life in service to one's country. But to participate on such a level as to serving specifically for the sole purpose of taking life...I object.

I can accept that answer. We dont agree but I respect the position.

[CC1]

I personally see and accept Christian participation in all matters accept in the personal act of taking a life. I was a medic. I understand risking one's life in service to one's country. But to participate on such a level as to serving specifically for the sole purpose of taking life...I object.

You better thank your lucky stars everybody does not share your views or this country would have ceased to exist many years ago.

IMHO any man not willing to defend his freedom, country, etc....well I can't say what I think or I would have to ban myself.

The Bible clearly differentiates between murder and just killing as demonstrated by one of the ten commandments being not to kill yet God ordered the Jewish people to kill on many occasions.

I suppose if your family is attacked in your home and a man or men are threatening to rape or murder your wife you are going to turn the other cheek?

IMHO justifying being a pacifist from the bible is distorting it just the same as the so called "prosperity gospel" proponents do. You are taking only a portion of the Bible and using it to oppose armed conflict for a just cause.

[chosenbyone]

Chosenbyone, you still there?

CH,

Sorry, you have had to carry this thread and the fight solo today. I had to go downtown, so I have been out most of the day. I was skimming through the last few pages and I wanted to tell you that you have made some very good arguments.:yourock Plus, you really held your ground with RD. You did that skillfully while having to contend with three or more other combatants. :boxing:thumbsup

I will go back and comment on a few of your posts.

CB1

All for one and one for all!!! :pirate

[Praxeas]

Yep. LOL

Al Queda and Bin Laden were threatening us quite a bit under Clinton's watch. There was a story about an FBI agent, John O'Neil who was trying desperately to prove the threat these guys posed to the US...but his warnings when unheeded and they actually shut down his investigation. He later left the FBI and became security at the WTC. Ironically...he died in the 9/11 attacks. He never knew it...but he was fighting to save his own life. It's a true but facinating and disturbing story. Check it out if you have high speed internet....

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/view/

A line in the spiritual journey of our nation was crossed on 9/11. Regardless as to who becomes President I feel in my spirit things don't look bright for our nation.

So where in there is evidence God was about to judge us? Bad things happen with or without God's judgment

[HeavenlyOne]

In our modern world we think of a sword as something to kill with. However, in the ancient world it was used to protect one's self on perilous journeys. Traveling long expanses of wilderness presented dangers ranging from lions to bears in biblical times. Christ's statement may also have been a figure of speech indicating that the time was coming when the disciples would face fearce opposition to their preaching the gospe. This would explain why when they left to literally obey him and brought two swords Jesus said, "It is enough." It's possible that they misunderstood him as was pretty common with them. Jesus rebuked Peter strongly for using the sword against another person and instead sought to heal the man Peter was willing to engage in mortal combat with. When the details are considered one is hard pressed to demonstrate that Jesus wanted them to pack swords to slice up the Romans. Besides...two was enough in Christ's eyes. It's unclear as to if Jesus meant that the two swords were enough for the group of twelve, sufficient to protect them from beasts as they traveled or if the statement, "It is enough." is aimed at restraining their actions as though they misunderstood him. If viewed in this way Christ's words, "It is enough.", would be a strong indicator that they were to leave the swords alone. However, Peter, in his carnality, chose to secretely carry a sword with him. Well intentioned of course, intending to defend Jesus and protect him from what was indeed his mission...which was to die for mankind.

Hense we see carnal reasoning and the useage of violence contrasted with the surrender of God's will and purpose no matter how dreadful.

Chris, do you have Biblical proof? I mean, of course the swords were for self-defense! So why did Jesus tell them that if they didn't have one, to sell their coat and buy one? Didn't they trust Jesus and God to protect them? After all, that's the question you asked me earlier, remember?

[HeavenlyOne]

Yep. LOL

Al Queda and Bin Laden were threatening us quite a bit under Clinton's watch. There was a story about an FBI agent, John O'Neil who was trying desperately to prove the threat these guys posed to the US...but his warnings when unheeded and they actually shut down his investigation. He later left the FBI and became security at the WTC. Ironically...he died in the 9/11 attacks. He never knew it...but he was fighting to save his own life. It's a true but facinating and disturbing story. Check it out if you have high speed internet....

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/view/

A line in the spiritual journey of our nation was crossed on 9/11. Regardless as to who becomes President I feel in my spirit things don't look bright for our nation.

Thanks for being a good sport with my 'gut feeling' ribbing that I've been giving you....LOL!

There are lots of things I believe about the Clinton administration in regard to the events that led to 9-11 as well as the mysterious deaths of several prominent people. Of course, you could say that it's my turn to have a 'gut feeling'. :D

[ChristopherHall]

I can accept that answer. We dont agree but I respect the position.

Thanks Ferd, don't get me wrong man, I know good men who have served in a combatant capacity. I don't think it's a sin to serve in a combatant capacity, but I do question the wisdom in doing so. In today's world with extended alliances and international treaties binding nations to action, not to mention the globalist agenda, I question the wisdom of being entangled in this world's system as a soldier.

For example the Joint Congressional Resolution passed by the House and the Senate, referred 16 UN resolutions which Iraq is alleged to have defied; those resolutions were cited as justification for a US invasion, but not one single reference was made to Congress' exclusive constitutional authority to declare war. With all the attempts by the administration to justify an invasion of Iraq by citing as authority UN resolutions and violations of UN resolutions by Iraq, one wonders if the president's primary concern was to further the interests of the United Nations or the interests of the United States which he was entrusted by the American people to champion.

By voluntarily choosing to be a combatant in military service is not the Christian agreeing to be a pawn in this new global society to be used as the United Nations Security Council deems fit?

Therefore I find it to be unwise and lacking discernment if the Christian volunteers for combatant service in the armed forces. The closer we get to the return of Christ the more likely any Christian serving will find themselves doing the bidding of globalist entities to secure their interests...not specifically the interests of the United States. I believe a time is upon us that calls for a greater degree of separation than we have known in previous decades. And that separation will become more and more important as we close in on the time of Christ's return.

[ChristopherHall]

You better thank your lucky stars everybody does not share your views or this country would have ceased to exist many years ago.

I think that those who have fought and won hard fought wars better thank their lucky stars for Christians who chose to wage war in prayer for their victory. I believe more is accomplished through prayer than struggle and revolution. I'd go as far as to argue that if it were not for conscientious Christians on their knees at home MORE soldiers and battles would have been lost on the battlefield.

IMHO any man not willing to defend his freedom, country, etc....well I can't say what I think or I would have to ban myself.

Defending one's country doesn't require shooting another scared young man who is convinced that he is defending his country's interests. I believe the Christian performs an even greater service in the defense of his country and countrymen through prayer and supplications before the Lord of Hosts than if that Christian were shooting at a squad other frightened young men who are convinced that they are defending their country, culture, or faith. It's entirely possible (and I believe it is so) that America would have been brought down long ago if not for those totally given over to prayer and supplications that strengthened and protected our soldiers on the battlefield.

The REAL battle isn't on the front lines...it's in the high places when we are on our knees. Praying Christians provide greater support than artillery.

The Bible clearly differentiates between murder and just killing as demonstrated by one of the ten commandments being not to kill yet God ordered the Jewish people to kill on many occasions.

When God manifests his presence and audibly commands us or speaks through a TRUE prophet imploring us to destroy a nation I will be in total and complete agreement. However, I'm convinced that our commission is to preach the Gospel. Christ will wage all the war that is needed and lead us personally when he returns in power and glory.

These are things I spent many an evening thinking about in prayer when I was in the military serving as a Combat Medic.

I suppose if your family is attacked in your home and a man or men are threatening to rape or murder your wife you are going to turn the other cheek?

Defense of my home is different. If someone enters my home unwelcome I can be fairly certain that they are a DIRECT threat to either myself or my family. If the President sends me to war it's questionable if I'm defending the Constitution or UN resolutions. Therefore defense of family cannot be compared with military service.

But consider the following:

If I am at war defending the authority of the UN Security Council and someone breaks into my home...who will protect my family? Is it my duty to protect them or the UN's interests?

If placed in a position to have to defend my family from an intruder I have several methods of responding at my disposal:

Escape
Martyrdom
Reliance on Divine Intervention
Ruse
Nonlethal Violence
Or Moral Disarming

-I can lead or call my family to escape our home. The robber may take what they will for nothing in my home is worth my life, my wife or child's life...or even the life of the invader. I couldn't live with myself if I killed an unsaved man and sent him straight to Hell over an entertainment center or watch collection.

-I can stand and allow myself to be taken down, pleading for the attacker's salvation as my family escapes.

-I can, and do, depend on God's miraculous power to intervene supernaturally or through other means.

-I can employ trickery or subterfuge to disarm or fool the invader.

-I can use nonlethal physical force if necessary to disarm or incapacitate the attacker if necessary.

-I can morally disarm an invader by showing love, respect, heartfelt moral superiority seeking the invaders welfare and using negotiation tactics.

I'm hardly a "pacifist". Jesus didn't call me to sit idly by and watch an attacker harm or kill someone. In some circumstances it would be appropriate to use whatever force necessary to halt, ward off, or incapacitate an attacker without the use of lethal force. I have a gift for any would be invader that will not kill them, but will leave them "standing in the need of prayer" if you catch my drift. However, under no circumstance would I seek to kill an attacker. I'm a Christian. That means I've come to grips with the reality of death. I had to do that in the military and I've had to revisit occasionally in personal devotions and Bible reading. We either believe in Heaven and eternal Salvation or we don't. It would be better for me to die and be saved than to take the life of a lost soul plunging them beyond God's mercy. I can only pray that my death in my attempt to thwart but not kill will have allowed my family to escape and open the door of opportunity for the attacker to find the salvation, peace, and Holy Ghost I have found in Jesus.

IMHO justifying being a pacifist from the bible is distorting it just the same as the so called "prosperity gospel" proponents do. You are taking only a portion of the Bible and using it to oppose armed conflict for a just cause.

IMHO you don't understand what Christian non-violence really means. When Jesus admonished us to love our enemies, bless those who curse us, and pray for those who persecute and dispitefully use us...I think that means we're not supposed to kill them. It is an evil should an attacker kill me...it is an even greater evil if I should kill an attacker and send them into an eternal Hell beyond God's mercy. I'm already dead...I'm crucified with Christ, and yet I live...not I...but Christ who lives within me.

[ChristopherHall]

CH,

Sorry, you have had to carry this thread and the fight solo today. I had to go downtown, so I have been out most of the day. I was skimming through the last few pages and I wanted to tell you that you have made some very good arguments.:yourock Plus, you really held your ground with RD. You did that skillfully while having to contend with three or more other combatants. :boxing:thumbsup

I will go back and comment on a few of your posts.

CB1

All for one and one for all!!! :pirate

Thank you, to God be the glory. You're such a blessing Chosenbyone.

[ChristopherHall]

So where in there is evidence God was about to judge us? Bad things happen with or without God's judgment

I can't say there is "evidence"...I can say that a number of preachers that I know warned of God lifting his protective hand from America on account of her sin. You can call it prophecy or a "gut feeling"...but they were right. I feel it confirmed in my spirit through the Holy Ghost.

I just thank God I'm not running for President. LOL

[ChristopherHall]

Chris, do you have Biblical proof? I mean, of course the swords were for self-defense! So why did Jesus tell them that if they didn't have one, to sell their coat and buy one? Didn't they trust Jesus and God to protect them? After all, that's the question you asked me earlier, remember?

I believe they misunderstood Jesus. David K. Bernard wrote regarding this saying,

"Why did Jesus tell His disciples on one occasion to
carry swords? (Luke 22:35-38). After the Last Supper,
Jesus gave new instructions to His disciples relative to the
preaching of the gospel. Earlier in His ministry, He had
sent them out without purse (money) or bag (supply of
food), telling them to depend upon the hospitality of the
people. Now, however, He told them to take purse, bag,
and sword. Possibly, He meant for them to take swords for
protection against wild beasts and robbers (to frighten off
or ward off the latter, not to kill them).

More probably, His allusion to the sword was
metaphoric. In other words, He was warning that they
would no longer enjoy a hearty welcome in every place,
but would face bitter opposition. Therefore, they should
learn to provide for themselves and to brace themselves
spiritually against attack and persecution.

Upon hearing this, the disciples found two swords
and brought them to Christ. He told them, “It is enough.”
Two swords are not adequate for twelve men. Apparently,
the disciples failed to understand Christ’s real meaning
at that time. When He saw them bringing two literal
swords, He decided to drop the subject. This view receives
support from Christ’s admonition to Peter a short time
later. When Peter actually tried to use one of these swords
in Christ’s defense, He forbade him with words that
denounce all killing. Furthermore, never again do we hear
of the disciples resisting violence with violence, although
they were subjected to violence many times."
- David K. Bernard, Practical Holiness

After much prayer and soul searching I find the above interpretation to be in harmony with the Spirit of Christ.

[ChristopherHall]

Thanks for being a good sport with my 'gut feeling' ribbing that I've been giving you....LOL!

There are lots of things I believe about the Clinton administration in regard to the events that led to 9-11 as well as the mysterious deaths of several prominent people. Of course, you could say that it's my turn to have a 'gut feeling'. :D

I feel it too. I don't know about the deaths of prominent people and all...but I do feel Clinton missed opportunities that may have prevented 9/11. I can't imagine the ghosts that haunt President Clinton when he considers those missed opportunities.

[BrotherEastman]

Easty, God punishes nations when "their cup of iniquity" is full. (see Amaleck)

I do believe that the Civil War was the judgement of God on America for the sin of slavery, remember that it was not the founding fathers generation(s) that suffered. the Civil war started 89 years after the Declaration of Independence.

So in part one must agree that the generation that sins isnt always the one that is punished. God allows time for the cup to be emptied in repentance or filled before he decides to forgo judgement or execute it on a nation.

But also understand that when God punishes a nation, it is total. Anyone who thinks 9/11 was Gods judgement has a small opinion of the Judgement of God.

Compair the loss of 3,000 on 9/11 to OT judement. Amaleck was distroyed in total. God said kill their men, women, children, sheep, goats, cows, and everything that lives. Israel and Judah were sent into slavery.

If one believes as I do that the Civil War was the judgement of God on America, consider that more Americans were killed/died from that war than in all the other wars we have fought combined!

Consider also that if Bombing Japan was a "sin" in Gods eyes, and sistimic/institutionalized racism that existed in America until the 1960's was a sin in Gods eyes, then it stands to reason that God in his grace gives a nation to repent.

Consider the shifting attitudes of Americans toward wholesale war, that in Iraq, we do not bomb civilian populations (turning a different direction from the past).

Consider the landmark legal decisions of the supreme court overturning institutionalized racism (sperate but equal), the vast amount of law that has been passed to counter racism. Consider that while we still have predjudice/racism today (read Rico's thread, it is brilliant), we are nowhere near as bad as we were in 1940 or even in 1980.

If God provides time for a nation to turn, then this nation has in many ways either done so or is doing so. And thus must be seen by God as worthy of more time.

Clearly then 9/11 cannot be the judement of God.

but that's just my 2 cents.
Sounds good Ferd; however, Gods judgement would have to fall fairly. Blood was spilled on innocent lives in order for the slaves to be freed. In keeping with the idea that God is just, why would innocent lives have to die for innocent men to be set free? That doesn't sound like God's wrath. Do you suppose that Christians are going to be killed because of God's wrath?

[ChristopherHall]

Easty, God punishes nations when "their cup of iniquity" is full. (see Amaleck)

I do believe that the Civil War was the judgement of God on America for the sin of slavery, remember that it was not the founding fathers generation(s) that suffered. the Civil war started 89 years after the Declaration of Independence.

So in part one must agree that the generation that sins isnt always the one that is punished. God allows time for the cup to be emptied in repentance or filled before he decides to forgo judgement or execute it on a nation.

But also understand that when God punishes a nation, it is total. Anyone who thinks 9/11 was Gods judgement has a small opinion of the Judgement of God.

Compair the loss of 3,000 on 9/11 to OT judement. Amaleck was distroyed in total. God said kill their men, women, children, sheep, goats, cows, and everything that lives. Israel and Judah were sent into slavery.

If one believes as I do that the Civil War was the judgement of God on America, consider that more Americans were killed/died from that war than in all the other wars we have fought combined!

Consider also that if Bombing Japan was a "sin" in Gods eyes, and sistimic/institutionalized racism that existed in America until the 1960's was a sin in Gods eyes, then it stands to reason that God in his grace gives a nation to repent.

Consider the shifting attitudes of Americans toward wholesale war, that in Iraq, we do not bomb civilian populations (turning a different direction from the past).

Consider the landmark legal decisions of the supreme court overturning institutionalized racism (sperate but equal), the vast amount of law that has been passed to counter racism. Consider that while we still have predjudice/racism today (read Rico's thread, it is brilliant), we are nowhere near as bad as we were in 1940 or even in 1980.

If God provides time for a nation to turn, then this nation has in many ways either done so or is doing so. And thus must be seen by God as worthy of more time.

Clearly then 9/11 cannot be the judement of God.

but that's just my 2 cents.

I read what you said in Bro. Eastman's response and wanted to say that you have presented good points.

But what are your thoughts on this....

I don't believe that 9/11 was "THE judgment of God" per se but rather God removing his hand of protection from us in an effort to reveal our vulnerability as a warning. It may serve as the first domino in God's over all purpose to judge our nation seeing that it has expanded into a global war that has left us even more enemies than before and created a government prone to domestic spying and the violation of even more civil liberties. I feel in my spirit that 9/11 was only the beginning of a story that could end with America calling for international aid after a strategic terrorist counter strike using weapons we pray they never acquire if we don't reach her with the Gospel.

9/11 may not seem like the judgment of God if viewed all by itself. However, when all is said and done and it is viewed in the context of the greater struggle unfolding...it may prove to having been the beginning of the end of the United States.

P.S.
It should be noted that we still have the majority of the last generation living that witnessed the unveiling of the American Government's abominable actions involving the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment. We may find at least some of the acts mentioned in Jeremiah's condemnation included in God's testimony against America should His judgment fall upon this generation of Americans. I can't see God ignoring such a heinous crime against human beings.

[CC1]

I am exiting this discussion because I am too disgusted to continue. I would would have a hard time continuing in a Christian fashion.

Have at it Chrissy boy. You are the Democrat National Party poster boy for Pentecost. You have swallowed every modern liberal piece of propaganda put out there for mushy young minds.

Thank God men and women have been willing to fight for your right to spew this pacifist swill. Of course Christians in prayer are important. Your point was obvious. Christians praying for world situations and Christians actually fighting in just causes are not mutually exclusive. As usual a liberal presents a false conundrum.

[ChristopherHall]

I am exiting this discussion because I am too disgusted to continue. I would would have a hard time continuing in a Christian fashion.

Have at it Chrissy boy. You are the Democrat National Party poster boy for Pentecost. You have swallowed every modern liberal piece of propaganda put out there for mushy young minds.

Thank God men and women have been willing to fight for your right to spew this pacifist swill. Of course Christians in prayer are important. Your point was obvious. Christians praying for world situations and Christians actually fighting in just causes are not mutually exclusive. As usual a liberal presents a false conundrum.

I'm terribly sorry if you were offended CC1. I didn't say anything that was contrary to Scripture, the classical position of Pentecostals in the history of our founding, the UPCI Articles of Faith, or the position held by respected men of God such as David K. Bernard who are featured on the required reading list for UPCI ministers.

Let's do more than support our troops...lets pray for them. Let's also pray for the young and impressionable Arab young people who are manipulated and sent do die as pawns by corrupt Islamic Fundamentalists in their Jihad. Let's pray for their mothers and their fathers and for a revival leading to a just society throughout the Middle East that will present more opportunities for the current generations of Arab young people than Paradise.

God bless and keep you Brother CC1. Goodnight.

P.S.
You can feel free to call me Bro. Chris or just Chris. I'm not big on formalities or titles.

[MissBrattified]

CH, I don't have time tonight to wade through pages of posts, but I will say that the positions you should embrace should be dear to you because they are based on scripture--not because they are espoused by the UPCI, or because an "anointed man of God" told you so, or because they are "classical positions." Ultimately, you need to be able to defend your belief system from the Word of God, because the Word is the final authority on every issue, and if you cannot defend a position scripturally, then you should be able to confess that perhaps it is an erroneous one, or at very least, not worth offending your brother over.

[ChristopherHall]

CH, I don't have time tonight to wade through pages of posts, but I will say that the positions you should embrace should be dear to you because they are based on scripture--not because they are espoused by the UPCI, or because an "anointed man of God" told you so, or because they are "classical positions." Ultimately, you need to be able to defend your belief system from the Word of God, because the Word is the final authority on every issue, and if you cannot defend a position scripturally, then you should be able to confess that perhaps it is an erroneous one, or at very least, not worth offending your brother over.

And I firmly believe I have demonstrated that my position is indeed based on the Word of God. Can anyone provide New Testament evidence or examples of Christians waging war or using lethal force against their enemies?

I know it's often said tongue in cheek...but really...who would Jesus have me bomb? Who would Jesus have me sniper?



http://www.libsci.sc.edu/fsd/walling/web/graphics/combatmedic.jpg

The Combat Medic

A battlefield’s a lonely place, each one a fox before the hounds,
sole target of the hunt. Each one a hound, both stalked and stalking.
Each ammo flash, each scream, each moan belongs to all--the air alive
with sound and blood and body parts. A no man’s land of violence.

A bullet finds its home. A fox brought down, a hunter stilled,
alone in pain and shadow, bloody mud and sand, shrouded in mist
and memory. The hunt recedes to stalk another fox.

A healer moves amidst the carnage, seeking out the fallen.
Sure and steady hands find a pulse, probe to stop the life force flowing out.
The touch: “You’re not alone. I’ve found you. We’re here together, you and I.”
Two soldiers finding healing in the chaos.

-Linda Lucas Walling

[HeavenlyOne]

I believe they misunderstood Jesus. David K. Bernard wrote regarding this saying,



After much prayer and soul searching I find the above interpretation to be in harmony with the Spirit of Christ.

Chris, did you read it? He uses words like 'probably' and 'more probably'. He's not even sure himself. It's just his opinion based on supposition.

[MissBrattified]

And I firmly believe I have demonstrated that my position is indeed based on the Word of God. Can anyone provide New Testament evidence or examples of Christians waging war or using lethal force against their enemies?

I know it's often said tongue in cheek...but really...who would Jesus have me bomb? Who would Jesus have me sniper?

I'm not going to argue this particular topic right now, one way or the other. But you keep mentioning classical "positions" and writings by men, when in fact you need to be referencing scriptures to prove your points. First of all, it simply carries more weight, and secondly the UPCI, the AOF or the Manual--well, those are not the holy grail of doctrine and Christianity. I respect the men who formed them, but I still rest my beliefs on the Word, and since the Word is common ground with other Christians, you would do much better to argue your points from there.

That's all I'm saying.

[MissBrattified]

In light of classical Pentecostal doctrine and teaching...where would God and we as the people of God stand on America's dropping the atom bomb killing masses of innocent civilians?

I've never thought to ask this question but; did we warn the civilian population of Japan in any way?

This post is a perfect example. Why do you say "in light of classical Pentecostal doctrine and teaching" rather than "in light of scripture", and then provide references?

[ChristopherHall]

Chris, did you read it? He uses words like 'probably' and 'more probably'. He's not even sure himself. It's just his opinion based on supposition.

Bro. Bernard uses those words because there are others who may disagree. He isn't being dogmatic so as to establish a dogma on the issue. I see it as both wise and compelling.

He says "probably"...after reviewing this interpretation in light of Scripture, namely the teachings of Jesus, I'd say assuredly.

Don't mistaken manners for uncertainty.

If Jesus intended them to use the swords to defend themselves...why did he rebuke Peter for using it in the garden. Ah, but one may say that it was because Peter was unknowingly thwarting salvation's plan. Oh but dear friend, why then don't we see Peter using this sword elsewhere, he had ample need and opportunity to defend himself later when persecuted. However, Peter never uses violence again...ultimately embracing his own martyrdom.

I find it troubling that Muslims are willing to blow themselves up to be obedient to their Allah...but so few Christians are willing to be like Christ. I present to you that real Christianity isn't popular and isn't met with ticker-tape parades. The cross is a symbol of death...agonizing death. Death to self, death to sin, death to this world. And this cross is a cross that will cost the seeker who truly seeks to follow the way of the sandaled feet of the Galilean carpenter.

[MissBrattified]

The end conclusion of pacifism is to state that those who participate in national, state or personal self-defense are murderers, and that is the premise I completely disagree with. If an invader enters this home, this home and the life of its occupants will be defended with priority over the life of the invader. What would I be saying to my children who God placed in my care if I were to allow them to be hurt, injured or killed by an intruder? That I care more for the stranger's body and soul than I do theirs?

I have a responsibility to defend my children, and I have a right to defend myself. Those rights and responsibilities are not forbidden or refuted by scripture.

[HeavenlyOne]

Bro. Bernard uses those words because there are others who may disagree. He isn't being dogmatic so as to establish a dogma on the issue. I see it as both wise and compelling.

He says "probably"...after reviewing this interpretation in light of Scripture, namely the teachings of Jesus, I'd say assuredly.

Don't mistaken manners for uncertainty.

If Jesus intended them to use the swords to defend themselves...why did he rebuke Peter for using it in the garden. Ah, but one may say that it was because Peter was unknowingly thwarting salvation's plan. Oh but dear friend, why then don't we see Peter using this sword elsewhere, he had ample need and opportunity to defend himself later when persecuted. However, Peter never uses violence again...ultimately embracing his own martyrdom.


Chris, come on. Nobody uses words indicating being unsure just because someone might disagree with him. Does he write his books using those words? No, he doesn't. When someone uses 'probably' in any sentence, that means there is reasonable doubt...not by the person reading or hearing those words, but by the person writing or speaking them.

[ChristopherHall]

This post is a perfect example. Why do you say "in light of classical Pentecostal doctrine and teaching" rather than "in light of scripture", and then provide references?

It is written,

“But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but
whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to
him the other also. . . . Love your enemies, bless them
that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and
pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute
you” (Matthew 5:39, 44)

“Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they
that take the sword shall perish with the sword” (Matthew
26:52)

“And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying,
And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do
violence to no man” (Luke 3:14)

“For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war
after the flesh: (For the weapons of our warfare are
not carnal)” (II Corinthians 10:3-4)

“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood”
(Ephesians 6:12)

“Ye have condemned and killed the just; and he
doth not resist you” (James 5:6)

"And labour, working with our own hands: being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it:" (1 Cor 4:12)

"Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing." (1 Pet 3:9)

"Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence." (John 18:36)

"And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.
And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep." (Acts 7:59-60)

"But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood." (Acts 15:20)

"That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well." (Acts 15:29)

"17Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men.
18If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.
19Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord." (Romans 12:17-19)

"11For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law." (James 2:11)

" 18Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.
19For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully.
20For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God.
21For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:" (I Peter 2:18-21)

"15But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men's matters." (I Peter 4:15)

"And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?" (Revelation 6:10)

"10He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints." (Revelation 13:10)

"Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her." (Revelation 18:20)

"For true and righteous are his judgments: for he hath judged the great whore, which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of his servants at her hand." (Revelation 19:2)

Lastly consider the lives and martyrdom of the Apostles. Where do you see them using or advocating lethal force to defend themselves or Rome?

The Scriptural and historical evidence of the New Testament position against the use of lethal force is overwhelming. This doesn't mean we do nothing. It means we do what is necessary accept using lethal force. We don't kill.

[izzyschwartz]

On the subject of FOX News lying,--how did they lie? This madman said the things he said to incite hate. We are dealing with someone here who is wresting the Scriptures to his own destruction. This evil man was exposed,- and what he says on the rest of the video does not justify his hatred. There is a time for war and a time to kill- that is what the Scripture says!

[MissBrattified]

It is written,

“But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but
whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to
him the other also. . . . Love your enemies, bless them
that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and
pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute
you” (Matthew 5:39, 44)

“Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they
that take the sword shall perish with the sword” (Matthew
26:52)

“And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying,
And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do
violence to no man” (Luke 3:14)

“For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war
after the flesh: (For the weapons of our warfare are
not carnal)” (II Corinthians 10:3-4)

“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood”
(Ephesians 6:12)

“Ye have condemned and killed the just; and he
doth not resist you” (James 5:6)

"And labour, working with our own hands: being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it:" (1 Cor 4:12)

"Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing." (1 Pet 3:9)

"Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence." (John 18:36)

"And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.
And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep." (Acts 7:59-60)

"But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood." (Acts 15:20)

"That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well." (Acts 15:29)

"17Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men.
18If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.
19Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord." (Romans 12:17-19)

"11For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law." (James 2:11)

" 18Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.
19For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully.
20For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God.
21For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:" (I Peter 2:18-21)

"15But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men's matters." (I Peter 4:15)

"And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?" (Revelation 6:10)

"10He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints." (Revelation 13:10)

"Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her." (Revelation 18:20)

"For true and righteous are his judgments: for he hath judged the great whore, which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of his servants at her hand." (Revelation 19:2)

Lastly consider the lives and martyrdom of the Apostles. Where do you see them using or advocating lethal force to defend themselves or Rome?

The Scriptural and historical evidence of the New Testament position against the use of lethal force is overwhelming. This doesn't mean we do nothing. It means we do what is necessary accept using lethal force. We don't kill.

Thanks for posting this, CH! :D We may not agree completely on the drawn conclusions, but I certainly find scripture to be more persuasive than writings by any man.

[ChristopherHall]

The end conclusion of pacifism is to state that those who participate in national, state or personal self-defense are murderers, and that is the premise I completely disagree with.

I respect your opinion...can you provide Scripture illustrating that New Testament Christians engage in war and use lethal force to defend themselves and their families?

If an invader enters this home, this home and the life of its occupants will be defended with priority over the life of the invader. What would I be saying to my children who God placed in my care if I were to allow them to be hurt, injured or killed by an intruder? That I care more for the stranger's body and soul than I do theirs?

The issue is "lethal force". I firmly believe in immobilizing, disarming, outwitting, escaping, or incapacitating an attacker. I addressed this in the previous thread by explaining this. I would use whatever means available to thwart an attack and allow my family accept the use lethal force, even if it cost me my life. I'm saved...the attacker isn't. If as a result of my death they survive and find salvation I will rejoice with them on streets of gold.

I have a responsibility to defend my children, and I have a right to defend myself. Those rights and responsibilities are not forbidden or refuted by scripture.

Sister, I firmly agree with you. You have the responsibility to defend your family. However at your disposal are a number of means...not just lethal force. Your options are,

-Escape - the best option by far
-Martyrdom - pleading for the attackers salvation while they attack you allowing your family to escape
-Reliance on Divine Intervention- requires much faith and reliance upon God's providence
-Ruse- requires a quick intellect capable of thinking under extreme stress
-Nonlethal Violence- requires the use of nonlethal martial arts, objects, or weapons such as stun guns
-Or Moral Disarming- requires discerning the heart of the attacker and allowing the Holy Ghost to reveal what must be said to win them over, causing them to cease in their efforts and perhaps turn themselves in or leave on their own accord

I'm not a pacifist Sister. I have a little something that will leave any invader of my home "standing in the need of prayer". However, it will not kill them.

[ChristopherHall]

Chris, come on. Nobody uses words indicating being unsure just because someone might disagree with him. Does he write his books using those words? No, he doesn't. When someone uses 'probably' in any sentence, that means there is reasonable doubt...not by the person reading or hearing those words, but by the person writing or speaking them.

Yes he does. I've read them as required reading. He's very analytical and affords the reader the right to draw their own conclusion, however he's convinced of the position. Remember, he's writing material that is to be read by an entire organization of ministers with various view points. He's writing respectfully and with much respect.

That's called...tact.

Webster's Dictionary:

tact
Pronunciation:
\ˈtakt\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
French, sense of touch, from Latin tactus, from tangere to touch — more at tangent
Date:
1797

1 : sensitive mental or aesthetic perception <converted the novel into a play with remarkable skill and tact>
2 : a keen sense of what to do or say in order to maintain good relations with others or avoid offense

[ChristopherHall]

On the subject of FOX News lying,--how did they lie? This madman said the things he said to incite hate. We are dealing with someone here who is wresting the Scriptures to his own destruction. This evil man was exposed,- and what he says on the rest of the video does not justify his hatred. There is a time for war and a time to kill- that is what the Scripture says!

We only heard snippets of the sermon. How did the sermon end?

Anyone can take something someone said out of context and exaggerate it's meaning. I'd like to know how the sermon ended so that I can be certain I'm judging this man with righteous judgment instead of jumping to an emotionally driven conclusion.

For the record...I don't think Fox News is lying. I do think they only gave us a couple seconds of an entire sermon. By preventing us from seeing the closing of the sermon I feel reservations with jumping to condemnation. Though from what I heard...it was over the top. I once heard a sermon titled "Go to Hell!" If only snippets of this sermon was played on television you'd think this man was condemning every sinner in America. However, it closed with a plea that we Christians act to prevent this from happening to a lost and dying world.

[chosenbyone]

On the subject of FOX News lying,--how did they lie? This madman said the things he said to incite hate. We are dealing with someone here who is wresting the Scriptures to his own destruction. This evil man was exposed,- and what he says on the rest of the video does not justify his hatred. There is a time for war and a time to kill- that is what the Scripture says!

FOX and in particular, Bill O'Reilly, blatantly lied about Rev. Jeremiah Wright, claiming "we have now proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he is an anti-American guy and there's no question about it." He made this claim on the basis of 3 minutes of soundbites taken out of context. 3 minutes out of tens of thousands of minutes of preaching over the course of 35 years.

[Pressing-On]

Too funny!!!!

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a1/pressing-on/hillary.jpg

[bishopnl]

FOX and in particular, Bill O'Reilly, blatantly lied about Rev. Jeremiah Wright, claiming "we have now proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he is an anti-American guy and there's no question about it." He made this claim on the basis of 3 minutes of soundbites taken out of context. 3 minutes out of tens of thousands of minutes of preaching over the course of 35 years.

Obama himself said he condemned the statements, and that he did not agree with Wright. :hmmm

Is he lying too?

[BrotherEastman]

Below is an assignment that I have done in my Critical Thinking class. I am curious as to why the black constintuency of our nation has switched from being Republican to Democratic. Can anyone unbiasly answer this question? Please read before making a comment, and may I suggest going to these sources before you do as well. If you answer with an opinion, at least back it up with some sources.


The online news article I read was from www.newsmax.com ,which was about Martin Luther King Jr. being a Republican. From the beginning, I was set to prove this article wrong because I have always known that the majority of the African-American community to be of the Democratic persuasion. To back my understanding of this fact, I went to http://people-press.org/commentary/display.php3?AnalysisID=95 , this site has shown the black democratic population to be 62-65% since 2000. So, why the claim from the newsmax.com staff that Martin Luther King Jr.was a Republican? I have been a casual reader of newsmax.com for several months, and I have come to the conclusion that they are biased towards the Republicans because they are always putting the Democrats in a "bad light" based upon their views.
My findings after doing search engine research through google were interesting. I have discovered that Martin Luther King Jr. was not opposed to ''democratic socialism", but privately supported this political idea so that he wouldn't be indicted by John F Kennedy for communism. The thing that kept him from embracing democratic socialism was the fact that it was difficult to put values of faith with socialism. The sources for this information are found www.en/wikipedia.org/wikj/martin_luther_king,_jr , and www.nbra.com . The "National Black Republicans Association" has a magazine called "The Black Republican" that seems to back up the claim made by newsmax.
In my opinion, newsmax is trustworthy in a biased sort of way.

[Pressing-On]

I referenced this article on Rico's thread, "My Thoughts On Racism". Thought is was very interesting.

Typical
By Cal Thomas
Tuesday, March 25, 2008

One of the best tools I have seen that could help bridge the racial divide is a PBS documentary series called "African American Lives." Its creator and host is Harvard professor Dr. Henry Louis Gates Jr. The program is a rarity in television. It informs without bias.

This four-part series features Oprah Winfrey, Whoopi Goldberg, Bishop T.D. Jakes, Quincy Jones, Mae Jemison, Dr. Ben Carson, Dr. Sara Lawrence-Lightfoot and Chris Tucker. Using DNA, the program traces their ancestry. Some have firm roots in African tribes, but others are surprising. For instance, Gates, who is African American, found that much of his DNA could be traced back to Ireland.

"African American Lives 2," the sequel to the original program, traced the lineage of comedian Chris Rock, singer Tina Turner, Oscar-winning actor Morgan Freeman Jr., and magazine publisher Linda Johnson Rice, among others. Using courthouse documents, plantation ledgers and slave ship records, the subjects learn surprising things about their forebears. One of Rock's ancestors was a South Carolina state senator. One of Turner's ancestors founded the school she attended as a child, though she didn't know about the genealogical link until the program revealed it in a touching moment.

I defy anyone but the most ardent racist to watch this series and not be transformed by what it reveals. I have spoken and exchanged e-mail with Dr. Gates and he says the main message in these programs is that slavery was more about economics than race.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/CalThomas/2008/03/25/typical

[Pressing-On]

Below is an assignment that I have done in my Critical Thinking class. I am curious as to why the black constintuency of our nation has switched from being Republican to Democratic. Can anyone unbiasly answer this question? Please read before making a comment, and may I suggest going to these sources before you do as well. If you answer with an opinion, at least back it up with some sources.


The online news article I read was from www.newsmax.com ,which was about Martin Luther King Jr. being a Republican. From the beginning, I was set to prove this article wrong because I have always known that the majority of the African-American community to be of the Democratic persuasion. To back my understanding of this fact, I went to http://people-press.org/commentary/display.php3?AnalysisID=95 , this site has shown the black democratic population to be 62-65% since 2000. So, why the claim from the newsmax.com staff that Martin Luther King Jr.was a Republican? I have been a casual reader of newsmax.com for several months, and I have come to the conclusion that they are biased towards the Republicans because they are always putting the Democrats in a "bad light" based upon their views.
My findings after doing search engine research through google were interesting. I have discovered that Martin Luther King Jr. was not opposed to ''democratic socialism", but privately supported this political idea so that he wouldn't be indicted by John F Kennedy for communism. The thing that kept him from embracing democratic socialism was the fact that it was difficult to put values of faith with socialism. The sources for this information are found www.en/wikipedia.org/wikj/martin_luther_king,_jr , and www.nbra.com . The "National Black Republicans Association" has a magazine called "The Black Republican" that seems to back up the claim made by newsmax.
In my opinion, newsmax is trustworthy in a biased sort of way.
I'll have to check, but I believe I've read it had something to do with the "welfare system" pandering.

Ferd might have more info on that.

[BrotherEastman]

Another interesting article:

Ken Blackwell - Columnist for the New York Sun It's an amazing time to be alive in America. We're in a year of firsts in this presidential election: the first viable woman candidate; the first viable African-American candidate; and a candidate who is the first front running freedom fighter over 70. The next president of America will be a first. We won't truly be in an election of firsts, however, until we judge every candidate by where they stand. We won't arrive where we should be until we no longer talk about skin color or gender. Now that Barack Obama steps to the front of the Democratic field, we need to stop talking about his race, and start talking about his policies and his politics. The reality is this: Though the Democrats will not have a nominee until August, unless Hillary Clinton drops out, Mr. Obama is now the frontrunner, and its time America takes a closer and deeper look at him. Some pundits are calling him the next John F. Kennedy. He's not. He's the next George McGovern. And it's time people learned the facts.

Because the truth is that Mr. Obama is the single most liberal senator in the entire U.S. Senate. He is more liberal than Ted Kennedy, Bernie Sanders, or Mrs. Clinton. Never in my life have I seen a presidential frontrunner whose rhetoric is so far removed from his record. Walter Mondale promised to raise our taxes, and he lost. George McGovern promised military weakness, and he lost. Michael Dukakis promised a liberal domestic agenda, and he lost. Yet Mr. Obama is promising all those things, and he's not behind in the polls. Why? Because the press has dealt with him as if he were in a beauty pageant. Mr. Obama talks about getting past party, getting past red and blue, to lead the United States of America. But let's look at the more defined strokes of who he is underneath this superficial "beauty." Start with national security, since the president's most important duties are as commander-in-chief.

Over the summer, Mr. Obama talked about invading Pakistan, a nation armed with nuclear weapons; meeting without preconditions with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who vows to destroy Israel and create another Holocaust; and Kim Jong II, who is murdering and starving his people, but emphasized that the nuclear option was off the table against terrorists - something no president has ever taken off the table since we created nuclear weapons in the 1940s. Even Democrats who have worked in national security condemned all of those remarks. Mr. Obama is a foreign-policy novice who would put our national security at risk.

Next, consider economic policy. For all its faults, our health care system is the strongest in the world. And free trade agreements, created by Bill Clinton as well as President Bush, have made more goods more affordable so that even people of modest means can live a life that no one imagined a generation ago. Yet Mr. Obama promises to raise taxes on "the rich." How to fix Social Security? Raise taxes. How to fix Medicare? Raise taxes. Prescription drugs? Raise taxes. Free college? Raise taxes. Socialize medicine? Raise taxes. His solution to everything is to have government take it over. Big Brother on steroids, funded by your paycheck.

Finally, look at the social issues. Mr. Obama had the audacity to open a stadium rally by saying, "All praise and glory to God!" but says that Christian leaders speaking for life and marriage have "hijacked" - hijacked - Christianity. He is pro-partial birth abortion, and promises to appoint Supreme Court justices who will rule any restriction on it unconstitutional. He espouses the abortion views of Margaret Sanger, one of the early advocates of racial cleansing. His spiritual leaders endorse homosexual marriage, and he is moving in that direction. In Illinois, he refused to vote against a statewide ban - ban - on all handguns in the state.

These are radical left, Hollywood, and San Francisco values, not Middle America values. The real Mr. Obama is an easy target for the general election. Mrs. Clinton is a far tougher opponent. But Mr. Obama could win if people don't start looking behind his veneer and flowery speeches. His vision of "bringing America together" means saying that those who disagree with his agenda for America are hijackers or warmongers. Uniting the country means adopting his liberal agenda and abandoning any conflicting beliefs. But right now everyone is talking about how eloquent of a speaker he is and - yes - they're talking about his race. Those should never be the factors on which we base our choice for president. Mr. Obama's radical agenda sets him far outside the American mainstream, to the left of Mrs. Clinton.

It's time to talk about the real Barack Obama. In an election of firsts, let's first make sure we elect the person who is qualified to be our president in a nuclear age during a global civilizational war. Subject: Kind of scary, wouldn't you think Remember--God is good, and is on time--every time. According to The Book of Revelations the anti-christ is: The anti-christ will be a man, in his 40s, of MUSLIM descent, who will deceive the nations with persuasive language, and have a MASSIVE Christ-like appeal....the prophecy says that people will flock to him and he will promise false hope and world peace, and when he is in power, will destroy everything. Is it OBAMA??

I STRONGLY URGE each one of you to repost this as many times as you can! Each opportunity that you have to send it to a friend or media outlet...do it! If you think I am crazy..Im sorry but I refuse to take a chance on the "unknown" candidate

[Pressing-On]

Brother Eastman! Break up the paragraph so I can read it faster! (lol) We are in Reader's Digest mode these days you know! (lol)

[CC1]

Below is an assignment that I have done in my Critical Thinking class. I am curious as to why the black constintuency of our nation has switched from being Republican to Democratic. Can anyone unbiasly answer this question? .

The Democrat party offers more handouts. Perpetuates the victim mentality. It is the party that wants to tax those mean ole prejudice rich white people more and give the money to poor folks.

LBJ's so called "Great Society" programs almost single handedly destroyed the nuclear family in Black Culture by rewarding having no male in the home, single mothers, and the more illegetimate children you had the more you were rewarded with Government hand outs. All, of course, in the guise of "helping the children".

[Pressing-On]

Brother Eastman,
This is a great book, by Star Parker, that you need to read. It will go into more detail and is on the lines of what CC1 posted.

Uncle Sam's Plantation: How Big Government Enslaves America's Poor and What We Can Do About It

By Star Parker

America has two economic systems: capitalism for the rich, and socialism for the poor. This double–minded approach seems to keep the poor enslaved to poverty while the rich get richer. Let’s face it, despite its $400 billion price tag, welfare isn’t working.

The solution, asserts Star Parker, president and founder of the Coalition on Urban Renewal & Education (CURE),is a faith-based, not state-sponsored, plan. In "Uncle Sam’s Plantation," she offers five simple yet profound steps that will allow the nation’s poor to go from entitlement and slavery to empowerment and freedom.

Parker shares her own amazing journey up from the lower rungs of the economic system and addresses the importance of extending the free market system to this neglected group of people. Emphasizing personal initiative, faith, and responsibility, she walks readers toward releasing the hold poverty has over their lives.

http://shop.wnd.com/store/images/items/WB057.jpg

[Ferd]

FOX and in particular, Bill O'Reilly, blatantly lied about Rev. Jeremiah Wright, claiming "we have now proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he is an anti-American guy and there's no question about it." He made this claim on the basis of 3 minutes of soundbites taken out of context. 3 minutes out of tens of thousands of minutes of preaching over the course of 35 years.

Choesn, do you believe that the inital post in this thread gives correct context to Reverand Wrights comments?

[Baron1710]

I find it curious that so many are willing to jump on the “America’s chickens are coming home to roost” bandwagon. I do believe that a nation will be judged by the things it does, however defending itself is not one of them. I do not believe America has practiced terrorism. We do not fly planes of innocent people into buildings filled with innocent people and cheer their deaths. America’s Chickens will come home to roost when we continue to elect those who support the wholesale destruction of innocent human life and promoting the abomination of same-sex marriage as a civil right. So if Rev. Wright wants to preach about “America’s chickens”, maybe he should start with his long time friend and member of his congregation…Obama.

[Ferd]

Below is an assignment that I have done in my Critical Thinking class. I am curious as to why the black constintuency of our nation has switched from being Republican to Democratic. Can anyone unbiasly answer this question? Please read before making a comment, and may I suggest going to these sources before you do as well. If you answer with an opinion, at least back it up with some sources.


The online news article I read was from www.newsmax.com ,which was about Martin Luther King Jr. being a Republican. From the beginning, I was set to prove this article wrong because I have always known that the majority of the African-American community to be of the Democratic persuasion. To back my understanding of this fact, I went to http://people-press.org/commentary/display.php3?AnalysisID=95 , this site has shown the black democratic population to be 62-65% since 2000. So, why the claim from the newsmax.com staff that Martin Luther King Jr.was a Republican? I have been a casual reader of newsmax.com for several months, and I have come to the conclusion that they are biased towards the Republicans because they are always putting the Democrats in a "bad light" based upon their views.
My findings after doing search engine research through google were interesting. I have discovered that Martin Luther King Jr. was not opposed to ''democratic socialism", but privately supported this political idea so that he wouldn't be indicted by John F Kennedy for communism. The thing that kept him from embracing democratic socialism was the fact that it was difficult to put values of faith with socialism. The sources for this information are found www.en/wikipedia.org/wikj/martin_luther_king,_jr , and www.nbra.com . The "National Black Republicans Association" has a magazine called "The Black Republican" that seems to back up the claim made by newsmax.
In my opinion, newsmax is trustworthy in a biased sort of way.

I referenced this article on Rico's thread, "My Thoughts On Racism". Thought is was very interesting.



Easty/Pressing, I can’t answer the question based on what MKLJr believed philosophically. I can say that the early Civil Rights movement contained many republicans. George Herbert Walker Bush’s Father was a Republican Senator who supported the Civil Rights act. The early legacy is all jumbled. MLK might well have been a Republican and still have held some socialist views, that was not an out of the question thing.



An interesting historic footnote on the subject would be Condoleezza Rice’s father’s comments. He was a life long Republican and Condoleezza is herself….She was also either a member of the Birmingham church that was bombed or somehow related to that church. Her father’s word: “It was the white Republicans that were marching with us”.



Southern Democrats were very much against Civil Rights. Strom Thurmond was a democrat who left the party and ran for President on the Dixiecrat ticket as a segregationist. After failing to win, he became a Republican for the purpose of opposing Civil Rights legislation. When the southern white racist Democrats dropped from the party and became Republicans, Blacks shifted to the Democrat party enmass.



So to say that MKLJr was a Republican might very well be true. It might also be true that he would not have maintained that affiliation in the 1970’s and it might be true that if he had lived, the Black Civil Rights movement might not have become so radically socialist in its message.

[Pressing-On]

Easty/Pressing, I can’t answer the question based on what MKLJr believed philosophically. I can say that the early Civil Rights movement contained many republicans. George Herbert Walker Bush’s Father was a Republican Senator who supported the Civil Rights act. The early legacy is all jumbled. MLK might well have been a Republican and still have held some socialist views, that was not an out of the question thing.



An interesting historic footnote on the subject would be Condoleezza Rice’s father’s comments. He was a life long Republican and Condoleezza is herself….She was also either a member of the Birmingham church that was bombed or somehow related to that church. Her father’s word: “It was the white Republicans that were marching with us”.



Southern Democrats were very much against Civil Rights. Strom Thurmond was a democrat who left the party and ran for President on the Dixiecrat ticket as a segregationist. After failing to win, he became a Republican for the purpose of opposing Civil Rights legislation. When the southern white racist Democrats dropped from the party and became Republicans, Blacks shifted to the Democrat party enmass.



So to say that MKLJr was a Republican might very well be true. It might also be true that he would not have maintained that affiliation in the 1970’s and it might be true that if he had lived, the Black Civil Rights movement might not have become so radically socialist in its message.
Interesting. I was thinking that Malcolm X started the radically socialist message.

[Ferd]

I read what you said in Bro. Eastman's response and wanted to say that you have presented good points.

But what are your thoughts on this....

I don't believe that 9/11 was "THE judgment of God" per se but rather God removing his hand of protection from us in an effort to reveal our vulnerability as a warning. It may serve as the first domino in God's over all purpose to judge our nation seeing that it has expanded into a global war that has left us even more enemies than before and created a government prone to domestic spying and the violation of even more civil liberties. I feel in my spirit that 9/11 was only the beginning of a story that could end with America calling for international aid after a strategic terrorist counter strike using weapons we pray they never acquire if we don't reach her with the Gospel.

9/11 may not seem like the judgment of God if viewed all by itself. However, when all is said and done and it is viewed in the context of the greater struggle unfolding...it may prove to having been the beginning of the end of the United States.

P.S.
It should be noted that we still have the majority of the last generation living that witnessed the unveiling of the American Government's abominable actions involving the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment. We may find at least some of the acts mentioned in Jeremiah's condemnation included in God's testimony against America should His judgment fall upon this generation of Americans. I can't see God ignoring such a heinous crime against human beings.


Chris, God does not execute judgement on the repentant. America has universally condemned the things you and JW have pointed to.

Lets assume for arguments sake that dropping bombs on Japan was a sin in the eyes of God. (I dont believe it is), lets also agree that segregation was a national sin (I do believe it was). what is the current attitude? what has been the progression from those days to this?

Chris, if we are to "Spiritualize" these things, then we all have to agree that America has fully repented in that America has turned from a willingness to use Atomic weapons to a stance that it is a horrible thing, only to be used as a deterrent from others doing so.

and we have overturned segregationist law, and passed law that seeks to right the wrongs of the past.

This makes no sense. God removes his hand of protection as a warning to repent of sins that have already been repented for?


Tuskegee? Really? Who in the American Governement/Civilian Populace believes that was a good thing and ought to be repeated? Expanded?

[HeavenlyOne]

On the subject of FOX News lying,--how did they lie? This madman said the things he said to incite hate. We are dealing with someone here who is wresting the Scriptures to his own destruction. This evil man was exposed,- and what he says on the rest of the video does not justify his hatred. There is a time for war and a time to kill- that is what the Scripture says!

Sorry, but according to Chris, we live under another covenant, therefore, anything in the OT is null and void.

[HeavenlyOne]

Yes he does. I've read them as required reading. He's very analytical and affords the reader the right to draw their own conclusion, however he's convinced of the position. Remember, he's writing material that is to be read by an entire organization of ministers with various view points. He's writing respectfully and with much respect.

That's called...tact.

Chris, look up the definition of 'probably'.

'Tact' isn't in that definition, even by implication.

'Used by people writing respectfully' also isn't in the definition.

Better yet, please call or email him and ask him why he used that word. Let me know what you find out.

[HeavenlyOne]

We only heard snippets of the sermon. How did the sermon end?

Anyone can take something someone said out of context and exaggerate it's meaning. I'd like to know how the sermon ended so that I can be certain I'm judging this man with righteous judgment instead of jumping to an emotionally driven conclusion.

For the record...I don't think Fox News is lying. I do think they only gave us a couple seconds of an entire sermon. By preventing us from seeing the closing of the sermon I feel reservations with jumping to condemnation. Though from what I heard...it was over the top. I once heard a sermon titled "Go to Hell!" If only snippets of this sermon was played on television you'd think this man was condemning every sinner in America. However, it closed with a plea that we Christians act to prevent this from happening to a lost and dying world.


Chris, don't make yourself look really stupid and suggest that JW was speaking in 'what ifs' during his sermon. The above post greatly damages any credibility you might have had up until this point.

[HeavenlyOne]

FOX and in particular, Bill O'Reilly, blatantly lied about Rev. Jeremiah Wright, claiming "we have now proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he is an anti-American guy and there's no question about it." He made this claim on the basis of 3 minutes of soundbites taken out of context. 3 minutes out of tens of thousands of minutes of preaching over the course of 35 years.

CBO, Oprah, who is quite the liberal, didn't quit that church after hearing only 3 minutes of that mess coming out of his mouth.

[Neck]

How did he end his sermon? Certainly one could accuse any preacher by using a snippet of any sermon. How did the sermon end. I vote we judge it in it's entirety.

I say the Lord will judge him. He knew what he was saying and we all know as well.

Period!

[ChristopherHall]

Obama himself said he condemned the statements, and that he did not agree with Wright.
Is he lying too?

I find the above to be too simplistic. Obama is running for office. Do you really expect him to get into a public debate about what Jeremiah Wright said? Of course not. The statements were provocative, and it’s most likely best to minimize political damage to just condemn any over the top statements and move on.

However, as a free thinking individual….meaning Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity don’t control my opinions….I’d like to hear the sermon in it’s entirety before personally making a judgment call on it. I think that’s only fair. Hey Bishop…if it were a snippet of something you said in a sermon that could be taken wrong….I’d want to hear the end of the matter before making a judgment on what you meant.

[ChristopherHall]

Below is an assignment that I have done in my Critical Thinking class. I am curious as to why the black constintuency of our nation has switched from being Republican to Democratic. Can anyone unbiasly answer this question? Please read before making a comment, and may I suggest going to these sources before you do as well. If you answer with an opinion, at least back it up with some sources.

I think it’s because the parties aren’t static. If you review the history of the parties the Republican Party used to be more “libertarian” pushing for liberal reforms and the Democratic Party was more pro-institution, being conservative on changing things too radically. However, as time progressed the parties changed. Slowly as the Republican Party gained ascendancy they became more conservative and less likely to support radical changes while the Democrats assumed a more liberal approach embracing radical reforms. Since minorities have been up against discrimination it’s not surprise that they would shift allegiance to the party that supports radical changes in social structure.

Just my opinion at present. I know you wanted “sources”…on this one…it’s my opinion based on what I currently understand and I might be right or wrong…and I don’t care. Present more information showing contrary…I’ll reconsider my opinion. LOL

[ChristopherHall]

The Democrat parrty offers more handouts. Perpetuates the victim mentality. It is the party that wants to tax those mean ole prejudice rich white people more and give the money to poor folks.

LBJ's so called "Great Society" programs almost single handedly destroyed the nuclear family in Black Culture by rewarding having no male in the home, single mothers, and the more illegetimate children you had the more you were rewarded with Government hand outs. All, of course, in the guise of "helping the children".

Welfare is an interesting subject. Every society since ancient times has had a social welfare system of sorts. The idea behind the system is known in Scripture as “Justice”. The Holman Bible Dictionary explains it well….

JUSTICE

The order God seeks to reestablish in His creation where all people receive the benefits of life with Him. As love is for the New Testament, so justice is the central ethical idea of the Old Testament. The frequency of justice is sometimes missed by the reader due to a failure to realize that the wide range of the Hebrew word mishpat, particularly in passages that deal with the material and social necessities of life.

Nature of justice Justice has two major aspects. First, it is the standard by which penalties are assigned for breaking the obligations of the society. Second, justice is the standard by which the advantages of social life are handed out, including material goods, rights of participation, opportunities, and liberties. It is the standard for both punishment and benefits and thus can be spoken of as a plumb line. “I shall use justice as a plumb-line, and righteousness as a plummet” (Isaiah 28:17, REB).

Often people think of justice in the Bible only in the first sense as God's wrath on evil. This aspect of justice indeed is present, such as the judgment mentioned in John 3:19. Often more vivid words like “wrath” are used to describe punitive justice (Romans 1:18).

Justice in the Bible very frequently also deals with benefits. Cultures differ widely in determining the basis by which the benefits are to be justly distributed. For some it is by birth and nobility. For others the basis is might or ability or merit. Or it might simply be whatever is the law or whatever has been established by contracts. The Bible takes another possibility. Benefits are distributed according to need. Justice then is very close to love and grace. God “executes justice for the orphan and the widow, and… loves the strangers, providing them food and clothing” (Deuteronomy 10:18, NRSV; compare Hosea 10:12; Isaiah 30:18).

Various needy groups are the recipients of justice. These groups include widows, orphans, resident aliens (also called “sojourners” or “strangers”), wage earners, the poor, and prisoners, slaves, and the sick (Job 29:12-17; Psalms 146:7-9; Malachi 3:5). Each of these groups has specific needs which keep its members from being able to participate in aspects of the life of their community. Even life itself might be threatened. Justice involves meeting those needs. The forces which deprive people of what is basic for community life are condemned as oppression (Micah 2:2; Ecclesiastes 4:1). To oppress is to use power for one's own advantage in depriving others of their basic rights in the community (see Mark 12:40). To do justice is to correct that abuse and to meet those needs (Isaiah 1:17). Injustice is depriving others of their basic needs or failing to correct matters when those rights are not met (Jeremiah 5:28; Job 29:12-17). Injustice is either a sin of commission or of omission.

The content of justice, the benefits which are to be distributed as basic rights in the community, can be identified by observing what is at stake in the passages in which “justice,” “righteousness,” and “judgment” occur. The needs which are met include land (Ezekiel 45:6-9; compare Micah 2:2; Micah 4:4) and the means to produce from the land, such as draft animals and millstones (Deuteronomy 22:1-4; Deuteronomy 24:6). These productive concerns are basic to securing other essential needs and thus avoiding dependency; thus the millstone is called the “life” of the person (Deuteronomy 24:6). Other needs are those essential for mere physical existence and well being: food (Deuteronomy 10:18; Psalms 146:7), clothing (Deuteronomy 24:13), and shelter (Psalms 68:6; Job 8:6). Job 22:5-9,Job 22:23; Job 24:1-12 decries the injustice of depriving people of each one of these needs, which are material and economic. The equal protection of each person in civil and judicial procedures is represented in the demand for due process (Deuteronomy 16:18-20). Freedom from bondage is comparable to not being “in hunger and thirst, in nakedness and lack of everything” (Deuteronomy 28:48 NRSV).

Justice presupposes God's intention for people to be in community. When people had become poor and weak with respect to the rest of the community, they were to be strengthened so that they could continue to be effective members of the community—living with them and beside them (Leviticus 25:35-36). Thus biblical justice restores people to community. By justice those who lacked the power and resources to participate in significant aspects of the community were to be strengthened so that they could. This concern in Leviticus 25:1 is illustrated by the provision of the year of Jubilee, in which at the end of the fifty year period land is restored to those who had lost it through sale or foreclosure of debts (Leviticus 25:28). Thus they regained economic power and were brought back into the economic community. Similarly, interest on loans was prohibited (Leviticus 25:36) as a process which pulled people down, endangering their position in the community.

[ChristopherHall]

CONTINUED:

These legal provisions express a further characteristic of justice. Justice delivers; it does not merely relieve the immediate needs of those in dire straits (Psalms 76:9; Isaiah 45:8; Isaiah 58:11; Isaiah 62:1-2). Helping the needy means setting them back on their feet, giving a home, leading to prosperity, restoration, ending the oppression (Psalms 68:5-10; Psalms 10:15-16; compare 107; Psalms 113:7-9). Such thorough justice can be socially disruptive. In the Jubilee year as some receive back lands, others lose recently-acquired additional land. The advantage to some is a disadvantage to others. In some cases the two aspects of justice come together. In the act of restoration, those who were victims of justice receive benefits while their exploiters are punished (1 Samuel 2:7-10; compare Luke 1:51-53; Luke 6:20-26).

The source of justice As the sovereign Creator of the universe, God is just (Psalms 99:1-4; Genesis 18:25; Deuteronomy 32:4; Jeremiah 9:24), particularly as the defender of all the oppressed of the earth (Psalms 76:9; Psalms 103:6; Jeremiah 49:11). Justice thus is universal (Psalms 9:7-9) and applies to each covenant or dispensation. Jesus affirmed for His day the centrality of the Old Testament demand for justice (Matthew 23:23). Justice is the work of the New Testament people of God (James 1:27).

God's justice is not a distant external standard. It is the source of all human justice (Proverbs 29:26; 2 Chronicles 19:6,2 Chronicles 19:9). Justice is grace received and grace shared (2 Corinthians 9:8-10).

The most prominent human agent of justice is the ruler. The king receives God's justice and is a channel for it (Psalms 72:1; compare Romans 13:1-2,Romans 13:4). There is not a distinction between a personal, voluntary justice and a legal, public justice. The same caring for the needy groups of the society is demanded of the ruler (Psalms 72:4; Ezekiel 34:4; Jeremiah 22:15-16). Such justice was also required of pagan rulers (Daniel 4:27; Proverbs 31:8-9).

Justice is also a central demand on all people who bear the name of God. Its claim is so basic that without it other central demands and provisions of God are not acceptable to God. Justice is required to be present with the sacrificial system (Amos 5:21-24; Micah 6:6-8; Isaiah 1:11-17; Matthew 5:23-24), fasting (Isaiah 58:1-10), tithing (Matthew 23:23), obedience to the other commandments (Matthew 19:16-21), or the presence of the Temple of God (Jeremiah 7:1-7).

Justice in salvation Apart from describing God's condemnation of sin, Paul used the language and meaning of justice to speak of personal salvation. “The righteousness of God” represents God in grace bringing into the community of God through faith in Christ those who had been outside of the people of God (particularly in Romans but compare also Ephesians 2:12-13). See Law; Government; Poverty; Righteousness; Welfare.

Stephen Charles Mott

[ChristopherHall]

Social Justice (welfare programs) have been with Jewish and Christian societies since gleaning laws and the poor tithe. The Church welcomed widows into it’s care who had served the church and were over 65 years of age.

A Christian Society will have laws reflecting “social justice”. Interestingly, most Christians (primarily in America) have become radically biased against nearly any measure of social justice in modern society.

When discussing issues of poverty and welfare we do well not to “politicize” the subject but rather, as Christians, look at it biblically.

[Pressing-On]

Social Justice (welfare programs) have been with Jewish and Christian societies since gleaning laws and the poor tithe. The Church welcomed widows into it’s care who had served the church and were over 65 years of age.

A Christian Society will have laws reflecting “social justice”. Interestingly, most Christians (primarily in America) have become radically biased against nearly any measure of social justice in modern society.

When discussing issues of poverty and welfare we do well not to “politicize” the subject but rather, as Christians, look at it biblically.
There's a difference is helping the needy and making lazy people dependent on the Government for their survival. Don't you think?

[ChristopherHall]

There's a difference is helping the needy and making lazy people dependent on the Government for their survival. Don't you think?

In the Bible God commands Israel,

Deuteronomy 15:11
For the poor shall never cease out of the land: therefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy, in thy land.

In every society there will be those who are chronically poor. This may be due to disability, psychological/emotional issues, abandonment, being elderly and needing care, and yes…laziness. In the ancient East all in the nation were entitled to basic survival. This was to preserve the nation and the culture. This is why laws like gleaning laws and the third year’s poor tithe are mentioned in the Bible. Anthropological researchers have found that such measures were common I ancient agricultural societies, especially in the Middle East. It was the duty of the entire society to provide the social safety net needed to ensure Social Justice. The book of Amos is an extensive rebuke for the nation’s failure to fulfill it’s obligation to the most needy in their society.

I’m sure that there were some who gleaned the fields who may have been capable of doing work of their own. However, the Bible doesn’t appear to address them. Paul does address MEN who are able to work who don’t. Generally the classes that were entitled to Social Justice were the poor (those who's work didn't provide enough to live by), needy (disabled), fatherless (abandoned mother’s and children), widows (elderly), and strangers (immigrants). All were entitled to glean…oh…and also the Levite. The Levite and the religious classes were also entitled to glean because they were not allowed to own land of their own. This is why Jesus, an able bodied man, gleaned the corn fields with his disciples when accused by the Pharisees for eating with unwashed hands. So there have always been requirements for assistance. America would do well to consider the Biblical requirements of social justice in distribution of welfare.

Welfare, or Social Justice, is commented on throughout the Bible as my reference above presents.

God bless.

[bishopnl]

I find the above to be too simplistic. Obama is running for office. Do you really expect him to get into a public debate about what Jeremiah Wright said? Of course not. The statements were provocative, and it’s most likely best to minimize political damage to just condemn any over the top statements and move on.

However, as a free thinking individual….meaning Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity don’t control my opinions….I’d like to hear the sermon in it’s entirety before personally making a judgment call on it. I think that’s only fair. Hey Bishop…if it were a snippet of something you said in a sermon that could be taken wrong….I’d want to hear the end of the matter before making a judgment on what you meant.

So Obama is lying for political convenience?

Further, you call the statements "over the top." Does that mean you agree with assessment issued by various commentators that the statements were unnecessary and uncalled for?

As for snippets of what I've said in sermons....I don't mention my political views in sermons. It's much harder to take someone out of context when they are dedicating their pulpit time to preaching a crucified Christ rather than what they think politically.

[Praxeas]

I find the above to be too simplistic. Obama is running for office. Do you really expect him to get into a public debate about what Jeremiah Wright said? Of course not. The statements were provocative, and it’s most likely best to minimize political damage to just condemn any over the top statements and move on.

However, as a free thinking individual….meaning Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity don’t control my opinions….I’d like to hear the sermon in it’s entirety before personally making a judgment call on it. I think that’s only fair. Hey Bishop…if it were a snippet of something you said in a sermon that could be taken wrong….I’d want to hear the end of the matter before making a judgment on what you meant.
Obama has spin doctors like everyone else does. They could have simply pointed out JW really did not say what he said everyone is saying and that it was out of context and that fox lied....rather than have Obama lie to everyone else

[Praxeas]

A Christian Society will have laws reflecting “social justice”. Interestingly, most Christians (primarily in America) have become radically biased against nearly any measure of social justice in modern society.

When discussing issues of poverty and welfare we do well not to “politicize” the subject but rather, as Christians, look at it biblically.
Ah more of that subjective touchy feely assumptions you would be able to prove. Good grief....You know people, don't be surprised at the responses you get from others when you make sweeping generalizations like this that are unprovable.

[Praxeas]

In the Bible God commands Israel,

Deuteronomy 15:11
For the poor shall never cease out of the land: therefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy, in thy land.

In every society there will be those who are chronically poor. This may be due to disability, psychological/emotional issues, abandonment, being elderly and needing care, and yes…laziness. In the ancient East all in the nation were entitled to basic survival. This was to preserve the nation and the culture. This is why laws like gleaning laws and the third year’s poor tithe are mentioned in the Bible. Anthropological researchers have found that such measures were common I ancient agricultural societies, especially in the Middle East. It was the duty of the entire society to provide the social safety net needed to ensure Social Justice. The book of Amos is an extensive rebuke for the nation’s failure to fulfill it’s obligation to the most needy in their society.

I’m sure that there were some who gleaned the fields who may have been capable of doing work of their own. However, the Bible doesn’t appear to address them. Paul does address MEN who are able to work who don’t. Generally the classes that were entitled to Social Justice were the poor (those who's work didn't provide enough to live by), needy (disabled), fatherless (abandoned mother’s and children), widows (elderly), and strangers (immigrants). All were entitled to glean…oh…and also the Levite. The Levite and the religious classes were also entitled to glean because they were not allowed to own land of their own. This is why Jesus, an able bodied man, gleaned the corn fields with his disciples when accused by the Pharisees for eating with unwashed hands. So there have always been requirements for assistance. America would do well to consider the Biblical requirements of social justice in distribution of welfare.

Welfare, or Social Justice, is commented on throughout the Bible as my reference above presents.

God bless.
You didn't really answer POs question though. PO did not ask if it is commented on through out the bible. PO asked about the difference

[Ferd]

Helping poor people does not mean forcing them to remain dependant on the government.

[Pressing-On]

In the Bible God commands Israel,

Deuteronomy 15:11
For the poor shall never cease out of the land: therefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy, in thy land.

In every society there will be those who are chronically poor. This may be due to disability, psychological/emotional issues, abandonment, being elderly and needing care, and yes…laziness. In the ancient East all in the nation were entitled to basic survival. This was to preserve the nation and the culture. This is why laws like gleaning laws and the third year’s poor tithe are mentioned in the Bible. Anthropological researchers have found that such measures were common I ancient agricultural societies, especially in the Middle East. It was the duty of the entire society to provide the social safety net needed to ensure Social Justice. The book of Amos is an extensive rebuke for the nation’s failure to fulfill it’s obligation to the most needy in their society.

I’m sure that there were some who gleaned the fields who may have been capable of doing work of their own. However, the Bible doesn’t appear to address them. Paul does address MEN who are able to work who don’t. Generally the classes that were entitled to Social Justice were the poor (those who's work didn't provide enough to live by), needy (disabled), fatherless (abandoned mother’s and children), widows (elderly), and strangers (immigrants). All were entitled to glean…oh…and also the Levite. The Levite and the religious classes were also entitled to glean because they were not allowed to own land of their own. This is why Jesus, an able bodied man, gleaned the corn fields with his disciples when accused by the Pharisees for eating with unwashed hands. So there have always been requirements for assistance. America would do well to consider the Biblical requirements of social justice in distribution of welfare.

Welfare, or Social Justice, is commented on throughout the Bible as my reference above presents.

God bless.
CH,
You hit the issue that I was talking about - laziness.

Paul does address MEN who are able to work who don’t.

I Timothy 5:8 "But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel."

Another point that can be taken against Wright is the continual "white racism" speeches. That does include more than Wright. It it making the younger blacks, which I have heard say, "Why do I need an education? The white man owns everything anyway." This country needs hard workers. All of this other stupidity is getting old.

[Praxeas]

I don't believe God judges individual nations anymore like some thing of as in the bible. The entire world does NOT need a God to judge them to make bad things happen. Bad things will happen without God causing them because Adam and Eve sinned and because the heart of man is woefully corrupt.

America will fall because it's leaders are corrupt and power hungry and Americans are greedy and immoral. Same thing happened to Rome. We don't need to be judged in order for bad stuff to happen. We don't need God to make someone our enemy...no matter how virtuous we can be we will have nations that hate us because they are diametrically opposites of us.

HOWEVER....God can and will refrain from blessing us due to our lack of faith as a nation, our immorality and the high corruption.

When Jesus could not do many miracles in certain areas due to their lack of faith, that was not judgement

[chosenbyone]

Choesn, do you believe that the inital post in this thread gives correct context to Reverand Wrights comments?

The video certainly framed his "chickens coming home to roost" statement more in context than what FOX News had shown on their network!

In fact, the same all-American flag-wavers who called loudest for war against Iraq are now denouncing Wright as a hate-monger and a traitor, and attacking Michelle Obama for saying that only recently has she had reason to feel proud of her country. They insist that anyone who is not permanently proud of the United States, whose patriotism isn't plastered on his or her face like the frozen smile of a beauty queen waving from a Fourth of July float, is beyond the pale. Never mind that the glorious results of their debased version of patriotism -- 4,000 American troops dead, a wrecked Iraq, and a greatly strengthened terrorist enemy -- are plain for all to see.

You wouldn't expect the Republican Party, Fox News, Bill Kristol or the readers of FreeRepublic to issue any mea culpas -- they don't acknowledge that they've done anything wrong. But the mainstream media's pious tut-tutting over the Wright affair shows that it, too, has learned nothing from its disgraceful post 9/11 performance. The worst excesses of media groveling -- the flag pins, the instructions not to run anti-U.S. stories -- may be history, but the timorous mind-set remains the same.

Its reaction to Wright shows that the American establishment still cowers before the patriotic idol. It cited the "God ************ America" sermon again and again, like the Spanish Inquisition ritually intoning the words of some heretic before drawing and quartering him. It didn't matter that Wright uttered his curse in the context of demanding that America live up to its ideals -- all that mattered were those three talismanic words. Anyone this angry, our media gatekeepers solemnly informed us, must be rejected. The only question was whether Obama was irrevocably tainted by his association with the evildoer. Wright's "chickens coming home to roost" line about 9/11 produced the same unthinking, reflexive reaction. How dare this apostate suggest that America might not be blameless, that its actions could have had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks? Rev. Jeremiah Wright isn't the problem
The hysteria over Obama's former pastor's attacks on America shows we're still in thrall to knee-jerk patriotism.

By Gary Kamiya

[Praxeas]

Helping poor people does not mean forcing them to remain dependant on the government.
Most Christians want to help poor people, but we don't want to be enablers to their bad behaviors.

Just last night as I was at church this street lady (homeless though she says she has a place) came in. I see her often...usually she wants a roll of toilet paper.

She asks if I have a blanket and I say I think I have one in my car. I start to walk out and notice she is not following me......she tried to steal my screw driver I had just bought. I confronted her and she gave it back. She does that often...tries to take stuff. She asks for money and I said is a dollar enough? she says yes. I'd love to help her....but I am not going to enable her.

Lastly though....Christopher...of all those scriptures about giving how many are about giving to your brothers in the faith as opposed to sinners?

I think it is great to give to others in need, but it is very sad when we are ignorant of our own brothers in our midst that are struggling while many of the rest of us are driving escalades....and remember those struggling are often tithe payers.

[chosenbyone]

Helping poor people does not mean forcing them to remain dependant on the government.

Do you have any solutions for those depending on social services? What should we say to Jesus when he ask why we refused to help those in need?

Matthew 25
31"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

[Ferd]

The video certainly framed his "chickens coming home to roost" statement more in context than what FOX News had shown on their network!


Good. I am glad we agree.

In my opinion, based on viewing the good Doctors terse comments in context, I believe Jeremiah Wright was out of bounds, anti-American and fully racist.

I further believe the full context of the comments is proof enough that Barak Obama has shown a severe lack of judgment in sitting under that kind of spiritual tutelage. In fact it shows such a lack of judgment, that I cannot understand why anyone would want such a fellow to be president.

Beyond this lack of judgment, there is a clear indication that Barak Obama has given tacit approval of the Liberation Theology taught by Pastor Wright. Any person who gives twenty years of their life, extensive offerings, and has allowed their children to be trained in this dogma is qualified to be President of the United States of America.


I am glad we got this settled.

[CC1]

Helping poor people does not mean forcing them to remain dependant on the government.

Ditto!!!

When I worked on President Reagan's first campaign in Mississippi back in 1980 our state campaign co-chariman was a very intelligent black man who wrote an article in which he accused the Federal government of taking Black folks from the "Cotton Plantation" to the "Federal Plantation".

[Pressing-On]

Most Christians want to help poor people, but we don't want to be enablers to their bad behaviors.

Just last night as I was at church this street lady (homeless though she says she has a place) came in. I see her often...usually she wants a roll of toilet paper.

She asks if I have a blanket and I say I think I have one in my car. I start to walk out and notice she is not following me......she tried to steal my screw driver I had just bought. I confronted her and she gave it back. She does that often...tries to take stuff. She asks for money and I said is a dollar enough? she says yes. I'd love to help her....but I am not going to enable her.

Lastly though....Christopher...of all those scriptures about giving how many are about giving to your brothers in the faith as opposed to sinners?

I think it is great to give to others in need, but it is very sad when we are ignorant of our own brothers in our midst that are struggling while many of the rest of us are driving escalades....and remember those struggling are often tithe payers.
Good post, Prax. I read an article some years ago on the homeless. They studied the various facilities and found out that many of the homeless don't want to be dependent on the shelter. They want to be on the streets.

I am all for helping, but I am not for enabling.

It makes people selfish and greedy.

[Ferd]

Do you have any solutions for those depending on social services? What should we say to Jesus when he ask why we refused to help those in need?


All this "Jesus Asking" business is just plain tiresome.

Fact is, as Christians (not Americans) we are required to help those in need.

Secondly when we as Chirstians support policy that forces the poor into a kind of servitude to the state, we rebel against the Word of God!

help for the poor ought to be in the form of helping them get jobs so they can take care of themselves. And in the cases where they refuese to help themselves, help should be in the form of tuff love that forces them to take care of themsleves.

We will will always have the poor with us. (I have been poor myself on more than one occasion). We should treat them fairly and with respect. we should not build cheep houseing and give them handouts that force them into terrible situations and steal their one personal drive!

What we have done to the poor in America is make them dependant and rob them of their own free will and drive to succeed!

If there is anything that deserves the ire of God, it is this.

[DividedThigh]

Ditto!!!

When I worked on President Reagan's first campaign in Mississippi back in 1980 our state campaign co-chariman was a very intelligent black man who wrote an article in which he accused the Federal government of taking Black folks from the "Cotton Plantation" to the "Federal Plantation".

i remember that guy cc1 he was great, ditto for me, too, dt

[RandyWayne]

All this "Jesus Asking" business is just plain tiresome.

Fact is, as Christians (not Americans) we are required to help those in need.

Secondly when we as Chirstians support policy that forces the poor into a kind of servitude to the state, we rebel against the Word of God!

help for the poor ought to be in the form of helping them get jobs so they can take care of themselves. And in the cases where they refuese to help themselves, help should be in the form of tuff love that forces them to take care of themsleves.

We will will always have the poor with us. (I have been poor myself on more than one occasion). We should treat them fairly and with respect. we should not build cheep houseing and give them handouts that force them into terrible situations and steal their one personal drive!

What we have done to the poor in America is make them dependant and rob them of their own free will and drive to succeed!

If there is anything that deserves the ire of God, it is this.

Amen, amen, and AMEN

[chosenbyone]

While reading over Wright's life's history and achievements, I had a hard time understanding how anyone could honestly match the slanderous accusations spinning from FOX News and the neo-cons with this man's many accomplishments.

He had THREE presidential commendations for goodness sake!

[B][SIZE="2"]Courses Taught

Chicago Theological Union The History of the Black Religious Experience (With emphasis on Black worship, understanding and designing Black worship services) Liturgy and Eucharist: Worship in the Black Church (Team taught with Ralph Kieffer)

Chicago Theological Seminary History and Meaning of the Black Church (Team taught with Dr. Robert Meyners) The History of the Black Church in North America

North Park Theological Seminary Black Theology

Seminary Consortium for Urban Pastoral Education Liberation Theology in the Black Church (Team taught with Dr. James White) The Black Church in North America: Structure and Process in the Black Community

La Vern University History of the Black Religious Tradition (Chicago Extension for undergraduate credit)

United Theological Seminary Two Doctor of Ministry Programs Afrocentric Preaching and Pastoring

Garrett Evangelical Seminary Homiletics

Education

2002 Valparaiso University Valparaiso, Indiana Honorary Doctor of Humane Letters

North Park University North Park, Illinois Honorary Doctor of Divinity

2000 Bethune Cookman College Daytona Beach, Florida Honorary Doctor of Laws

1999 Colgate University Syracuse, New York Honorary Doctor of Letters

1990 United Theological Seminary, Dayton, Ohio Doctor of Ministry Degree, Black Sacred music Samuel D. Proctor Fellow

1985 Elmhurst College, Elmhurst, Illinois Honorary Doctor of Divinity

Monrovia Liberia, West Africa Honorary Doctor of Divinity

1982 Chicago Theological Seminary Chicago, Illinois Honorary Doctor of Divinity

1969-75 University of Chicago Divinity School Chicago, Illinois Master of Arts Degree Rockefeller Fellowship

1967-69 Howard University, Washington, DC Master of Arts Degree, Graduate Fellowship Bachelor of Arts Degree, Dean's List

1959-61 Virginia Union University Richmond, Virginia University Scholarship

Accomplishments

Honors

1970-75 Rockefeller Fellowship The Fund for Theological Education

1965-66 3 Presidential Commendations from President Lyndon B. Johnson

1961 Alpha Kappa Mu Honor Society

Special Projects

1997 CD Recording, "The Artist" recorded by The Sanctuary Choir of Trinity UCC

1976 Author & Composer, "Jesus Is his Name", recorded by The Trinity Choral Ensemble, Trinity Label, Chicago, Illinois

1975 Author & Composer, "God Will Answer Prayer", recorded by The Trinity Choral Ensemble Trinity Label, Chicago, Illinois

Researcher for and Contributor to: Black Song: The Forge and the Flame, written by John Lovell.

Career Accomplishments

1972- Pastor present Trinity United Church of Christ Chicago, Illinois

1999 Professor Garrett Evangelical Theological Seminary

1998 Professor Chicago Theological Seminary

1994-96 professor and Mentor for Wright/ Asante/West Fellows, United Theological Seminary, Dayton, Ohio

1992-94 Professor and Mentor for Wright/Kunjufu Fellows, United Theological Seminary, Dayton, Ohio

1976-92 Adjunct professor, Seminary Consortium for Urban Pastoral Education

1975 Adjunct professor, Catholic Theological Union, Chicago, Illinois

1974-75 Adjunct Professor, 1996 Chicago Theological Seminary Chicago, Illinois

1974 Executive Director, Chicago Center for Black Religious Studies Chicago, Illinois

1972 Columnist, Independent Bulletin Chicago, Illinois

1971-72 Proposal Writer and Editor, Dropout Prevention program The Board of Education Chicago, Illinois

1964-67 Salutatorian Cardio pulmonary Technician National Naval Medical Center U.S. Naval Hospital, Bethesda, MD

1963 Valedictorian - Corpsman School Great Lakes Naval Training Center, Great Lakes Illinois Hospital

1961-63 U.S. Marine Corps, 2nd Marine Division

Organizations

2001- present Board of Trustees Virginia Union University

1999-00 Board of Trustees Chicago Theological Seminary

1986-89 Board of Directors Evangelical Health Systems

1983- Western Consistory #28

1983-85 National Ministry Advisory Council of Chicago Theological Seminary

1981-90 Board of Directors TransAfrica

1976- present Doric Lodge #77 F. & A.M.

1976 Great Lakes Task Force on Churches in Transitional Communities Educational Outreach Program, Chicago Theological Seminary

1976-81 Commission for Racial Justice United Church of Christ

1976-79 Board of Directors Office for Church in Society United Church of Christ Interdenominational Ministerial Alliance, Chicago, Illinois

1975-95 Board of Directors Black Theology Project (Theology in the Americas)

1975-85 Board of Directors Center for New Horizons

1975-76 Communications Committee Church Federation of Greater Chicago

1975-76 Ecumenical Strategy Committee Illinois Conference, United Church of Christ

Presidents Council of Church Associates Chicago Theological Seminary

1975-76 Urban Ministers Task Force Chicago Metropolitan Association United Church of Christ

1974-79 Board of Directors Malcolm X School of Nursing

1974-76 Board of Services Chicago Metropolitan Association, United Church of Christ

ESAA/Urban League Ministerial Alliance

1973-74 Resolution Committee Chicago Metropolitan Association Illinois Conference United Church of Christ

1972 - present Ministers for Racial & Social Justice United Church of Christ

United Black Christians United Church of Christ

1972-76 Illinois Conference of Churches

1969-74 Black Caucus Divinity School Students University of Chicago

1960 – present Omega Psi Phi Fraternity, Inc.

Offices Held

1985- Vice Chairman Board of Directors, Black Theology Project

1984-89 Board of Trustees City Colleges of Chicago

1982-84 President, Board of Directors Centers for New Horizons

1980-83 Regional Vice President National Black Pastors' Conference

1978-81 Treasurer, Board of Directors Centers for New Horizons

1977-79 Vice President Commission for Racial Justice United Church of Christ

1977-79 Vice President, National and Regional Ministers for Racial & Social Justice

1976-78 Secretary Ministers for Racial & Social Justice Chicago Metropolitan Chapter

1978-79 Secretary, Board of Directors Office for Church in Society United Church of Christ

Lectures

Following is a list of Lectures written and delivered by Reverend Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr.

The Archdiocese of Chicago, "The Black Religious Tradition and Urban Spirituality"

Duke Divinity School, "Gardner Taylor Lecture Series," October 1986

Eastern Baptist Seminary, "Christianity and Afrocentricity"

Emory University, Candler School of Theology, Preacher (1985, 1986, 1990)

Fuller Theological Seminary, "Christianity and Afrocentricity "

Hampton University Ministers Conference, Preacher (1986, 1987)

Howard University, Annual Preacher (1986- 2002)

Howard University School of Divinity, "Unashamedly Black, Unapologetically Christian; The African American Christian Male Role Model," (1989)

Lutheran Theological Seminary, Philadelphia, PA, Preacher (1987, 1993,1997)

McCormick Theological Seminary, "Martin Luther King Memorial" Lectures

Princeton Seminary, Preacher (1988, 1997)

The Urban Congress of the Seminary Consortium, "Spiritual Roots for Survival & Liberation Study of the Black Religious Tradition in the Perspective of an Urban Setting"

Yale Divinity School, Preacher (1986)

Riverside Church, New York, Fosdick Convocation on Preaching and Worship, "Preaching: The Art of Connecting People with God" (1997)

National Council of Churches, San Jose Costa Rica, Lecturer, "The Incarnation of Faith in African American Culture: The Struggle for Minority Rights in The North" (1997)

Festival of Homiletics, 4th Presbyterian Church, Chicago, Illinois, "Preaching in the Growing Church" (1997)

[Ferd]

Chosen, Carl Marx was a beloved fellow in some quarters when he was alive. David Duke is a college professor today.

Ones accomplisments and eduaction do not undo ones racism and malignancy.

[Ferd]

While reading over Wright's life's history and achievements, I had a hard time understanding how anyone could honestly match the slanderous accusations spinning from FOX News and the neo-cons with this man's many accomplishments.


Further, I really find this line about fox news to be a bit ignorant. It was ABC that ran the story and brought it to prominence. NOT Fox news.

Sean Hanity was the first to talk about it, but that isnt "FoxNews" that is one of its talking heads.

Further, having viewed the piece offered in this thread, and agreeing with you that it provides context, I saw noting from FoxNew (or ABC for that matter) that is diametrically opposed to what I saw in the opening post of this thread.

there is no lie. there is no misdirection. there is only the words of one man, in context that show him to be a proponent of Liberation Theology and a bigot to boot. (and B. Hussain Obama sat under this guy and learned the lessons for 22 years)

[CC1]

Chosenbyone,

Your post just proves that a man only takes from education that which he wants to.

It also demonstrates how you can hold the most outrageous positions and still be prominent in the black community because you endorse their tightly held victim mentality.

Black "leaders" get away with all sorts of behaviour, statements, opinions, etc that a white person would be crucified for. Which I find is insulting towards Black people in general. It is like one is excusing outrageous behaviour because the person "just don't know any better, bless their little hearts". Very condescending.

[ChristopherHall]

So Obama is lying for political convenience?

No. Conceding to the fact that the comments, as presented, are to be denounced. Obama’s eliminating the debate and moving forward. He doesn’t see this as something even worth fighting over because, as can be seen here, struggling to find context is met with retort and rancor.

However, any rational human being would be interested in knowing the overall context of the statements and how the sermon ends. It may sound far worse than it really was.

Further, you call the statements "over the top." Does that mean you agree with assessment issued by various commentators that the statements were unnecessary and uncalled for?

As they were presented, yes. But I have to be honest…I don’t know the overall context of the statements. FOX isn’t giving me the full sermon, only sound bites. Before issuing a definitive opinion I’d like to hear the entire sermon and judge it as a whole.

As for snippets of what I've said in sermons....I don't mention my political views in sermons. It's much harder to take someone out of context when they are dedicating their pulpit time to preaching a crucified Christ rather than what they think politically.

That should keep you out of trouble. However, there are preachers who radically confront difficult political issues who often say things that their political adversaries seize upon. Such is life in America. LOL

[ChristopherHall]

Obama has spin doctors like everyone else does. They could have simply pointed out JW really did not say what he said everyone is saying and that it was out of context and that fox lied....rather than have Obama lie to everyone else

Actually NPR has featured Liberation Theology theologians who have extensively commented on the context of the theological perspective, homiletic, and black preaching tradition. On MSNBC there was an individual explaining that his comments if viewed in their overall context calls America to repentance so as to spare her…the intent of his sermon wasn’t strictly a condemnation. It was a condemnation of perceived wrongs (some real other’s perceived) and a call to America to stop playing God.

We who stand against the evils of racism and dehumanization really should be in agreement with the overall premise even if we feel some details are debatable.

But I’d like to here it for myself before making a certain call on it either way. Until I have the whole story…I’ll tend to lean toward the benefit of a doubt for Jeremiah Wright….after all…he’s not here to defend himself at present. He’ll come out and explain after the campaign. They want to move on from this and focus on real issues, not the words of an excited black preacher.

[ChristopherHall]

Ah more of that subjective touchy feely assumptions you would be able to prove. Good grief....You know people, don't be surprised at the responses you get from others when you make sweeping generalizations like this that are unprovable.

You don’t believe gleaning, the poor tithe, and other issues of social justice are explained in the Bible? Did you not read the entire article from Holman Bible Dictionary I presented you? There’s plenty of both Scripture and context to attend to. Research it.

May I offer a challenge? Please prove God didn’t issue laws allowing for gleaning, poor tithes, and social justice for the most needy of society.