In either case, if the State usurps such "authority" to itself, the State is wrong.
Actually massacres have biblical precedent. It is biblically legitimate to follow civil law.
If the State authorizes itself to commit Killings which are Biblically forbidden, is the State morally right to do so?
The bible specifically says to allow the people to believe as they wish. The bible does not specifically say to allow people to do drugs. I'm convinced to are biblically illiterate. This is Christianity 101. You can't decifer parables and now you don't even know that God told us to leave the people alone in their beliefs except to plant seeds. Here's one of many: Rom 14:15 But if thy brother be grieved with [thy] meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died. It's saying if you change the way someone worships God and cause that person to lose faith in so doing, you're not being charitable. Plant seeds but destroy not with meat (meat being correct teachings).
The verse applies to a Brother (i.e., a fellow Christian). Cite me one verse that says that the State cannot prohibit the practice of false Religions. Verses which apply to "brother Christians" will not be admitted as evidence.
You have made the State your God, now show me how you intend to cram the genie back in the bottle.
And incidentally, while you are lecturing on "Christianity 101", how about citing the specific verse which confirms "The bible says there are only 144,000 of the elect and only 7,000 of the very elect The elect and very elect are Christians of wisdom" -- you made the claim, back it up. A specific verse citing the 7,000 "very elect", thanks.
I read the laws and ordinances all through time, there is no mention of leaving someone alone if they're on their own property.
The Bible forbids Trespass.
In either case, if the State usurps such "authority" to itself, the State is wrong.
If the State authorizes itself to commit Killings which are Biblically forbidden, is the State morally right to do so?
Show me where they are biblically forbidden.
The State cannot Morally authorize itself to commit Killings which are Biblically forbidden.
I agree. But we are specifically forbidden to massacre non-believers. We are not specifically forbidden to enforce the law at someone's home.
In either case, if the State usurps such "authority" to itself, the State is wrong.
So why aren't they wrong in enforcing the speed limit? There's no biblical precedent for that.
If the State authorizes itself to commit Killings which are Biblically forbidden, is the State morally right to do so?
No. We follow civil law when as long as it doesn't go against the ten commandments, as Paul said.
The verse applies to a Brother (i.e., a fellow Christian). Cite me one verse that says that the State cannot prohibit the practice of false Religions. Verses which apply to "brother Christians" will not be admitted as evidence.
So you are judge who is right and who is wrong in their worship of God? No two people have the same belief in God since everyone's wisdom is at a different level. According to your logic everyone but one person would be banned. You call yourself "orthodox" and yet you and I believe very much differently. I don't even know that I would even consider you a brother since your only interest in the bible seems to be to justify drug use. You know nothing of prophecies and parables in my opinion. I don't appreciate people who use the bible and add to it or take away from it to mislead people on their single-minded agenda. However, I would not even consider having you banned from America and will let God be your judge. The parable of the tares of the field say do not root up the tares lest you root up the wheat with them.
Mat 13:29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
And incidentally, while you are lecturing on "Christianity 101", how about citing the specific verse which confirms "The bible says there are only 144,000 of the elect and only 7,000 of the very elect The elect and very elect are Christians of wisdom" -- you made the claim, back it up. A specific verse citing the 7,000 "very elect", thanks.
You and your stumblingblocks.
Rom 14:13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in [his] brother's way.
That's OK though, 400+ posts and I haven't stumbled yet. I'm going to have to teach you the whole bible. Haven't you heard any of this stuff before? If you really want to learn the whole bible, why don't you listen to a pastor, instead of a guy you don't even know on a political discussion site? The redeemed are the elect.
Rev 14:3 And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred [and] forty [and] four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth.
The ones who won't be fooled at all are the very elect.
Rom 11:4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to [the image of] Baal.
7000 are reserved because Jesus knows they will not bow to antiChrist.
The Bible forbids Trespass.
Neighbor to neighbor in the old testament. Drugs dealers are not my neighbors, nor are they neighbor to civil authority. The story of the good Samaritan explains who is considered a neighbor.
The State cannot Morally authorize itself to commit Trespasses which are Biblically forbidden.
Drug dealers are not neighbors to me or civil authority.
The State cannot Morally authorize itself to commit Killings which are Biblically forbidden. In either case, if the State usurps such "authority" to itself, the State is wrong.
Murder is the breaking of a commandment. Enforcing the law at a person's home is not forbidden.
If the State authorizes itself to commit Killings which are Biblically forbidden, is the State morally right to do so?
No, murder breaks a commandment. Show me where the law cannot be enforced at a person's home.