FOX Lies!! Barack Obama Pastor Wright

[DividedThigh]

Originally Posted by ReformedDave

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by Ferd

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]

Originally Posted by Ferd

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".

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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