1) In post 108 I said: “Given Islam competes with the Constitution for allegiance and supremacy, it is treason.”
2) In response, in post 122, you said, “There is no more seditious document to all political structures than the scriptures.”
3) In response to to 122, I said in 127: ““Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake” 1 Peter 2:13 Only if your government is evil should they be disobeyed. Like in the matter of Christ. If a law of men says, “forsake Christ”, I will dis-obey.”
4) Finally, in post 133 you re-emphasize the half-truth that we must obey the government by re-quoting 1 Peter 2:13 and quoting Romans 13:3.
I oppose Islamic Fascism in that it competes with the Constitution, and you respond trying to make me out as a hypocrite in post 122 talking about the “seditious” character of scripture, and by post 133 you cite the commands of scripture to obey the authorities. Which is it?
The answer is, we are given context for obeying authorities in Acts 4:19 and 5:29 we are given an example of the Apostles disobeying the unrighteous command to be silent about Jesus Christ. Moses’ parents disobeyed the government, and put their child on the Nile, and their disobeying of the unrighteous, ungodly command to kill their son came back as Moses.
Observe:
A) Did you never learn to properly apply Acts 4:19 and 5:29 and the example of Moses, or did you forget about them, or do you simply have an agenda?
B) You forget that in this country, we elect Caesar, and the Caesars we have are incompetent and/or treasonous. Rulers are told to rule with dilligence per Romans 12:8. Since we know Islam is treason and it aims to exterminate and subjugate all else including the Christian faith, is it not “dilligent” to expel or neuter it?
C) There are 100+ million Christians in China. In the governent sanctioned churches, they are not allowed to say Jesus is coming back. Therefore, to avoid tampering with scripture, Chinese Christians meet in secret. What would you tell those Christians to do?
blue-duncan: Maybe you can answer my questions from posts 76 and 77. P-Marlowe is unable to acknowledge the substance of them, and continue to maintain plausible deniability of his culbability in the propagation of evil.
P-Marlowe: One of the many points that instantly dismantle your whole shtick is from John Adams, saying, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” The substance of posts 76 and 77 are that there is nothing moral or religious about Islam. It’s all about control.
P-Marlowe and blue-duncan: Keep posting half-truths, red-herrings, and handwavings. It is certainly error for observers to watch you using deception and half-truths, and then observe you two being out-pointed, and then you two not conceding, and then for these observers to illogically assume that your case is merit-less. That is error. But is definitely fun to watch both of you type out new half-truths and deceptions, and then for me to expose them as the deceptions and half truths that they are.
Keep it coming. Don’t stop.
blue-duncan: Your first tactic in post 122 was to contradict post 108 by making scripture out to be seditious. Then you settle in post 133 on citing scripture to back up the authorities. Why the sudden change of heart? Seems like you are opposing for the sake of opposing.
P-Marlowe: You still have not answered posts 76 and 77. Why the handwaving? What are you hiding?
“The answer is, we are given context for obeying authorities in Acts 4:19 and 5:29”
Context says that Peter and John were addressing the Jewish Sanhedrin for proclaiming salvation in Jesus while preaching on the temple grounds. The limit of the Sanhedrin’s authority was the Temple and its grounds. The Roman governor controlled all else in Judea. Rome had not yet spoken on the subject.
In fact, later, while in Corinth Gallio, the Roman Deputy, ruled that Paul’s preaching was not a concern of Rome and that was one of the reasons for Peter’s and Paul’s admonition to pray for those in power and obey the rulers.
At the time the decision gave political legitimacy for the proclamation of the gospel in all the Roman provinces. However it did not change the fact that the proclamation of Jesus as Lord was a direct attack on the principalities, powers and rulers of this world. This all changed after the fire in Rome when christians became Nero’s scapegoats.
As to the seditious nature of the scripture, in the opening passage of Romans, Paul proclaims Jesus to be The Son of God and Lord, both titles claimed by the Emperors Claudius and Nero through the deified Julius Caesar, and Peter in the face of Nero’s hostility in his letter proclaims Jesus as Lord and Rome as Babylon. Both of these letters assert that the real Lord was Jesus and thus Claudius and Nero were just temporal usurpers.
I find it fascinating that you continue to argue scripture and doctrine to oppose my political position yet mesta has not cried foul and cried out against YOUR hijacking of this political thread and arguing stuff that should be better discussed in the religion forum.
Interesting. But not surprising. Only certain religious positions appear to be prohibited on this thread. Namely mine.