Posted on 06/15/2015 6:44:40 AM PDT by xzins
The Pacifism interpretation of Scripture and Christianity doesn't hold water.
Christ said he who has none should sell his coat and buy a sword.
Christ didn't say go into all the world to encourage tourism and He didn't say to buy a sword so His followers would look nice in parades.
Christianity has collapsed in this country in large part because it began preaching the doctrine of retreating before evil and submitting to evil rather than confronting evil.
People who will go quietly to the cattle cars as long as the legal machine has obeyed it's own rules aren't Christians or citizens, they're lost sheep headed to the slaughter first and Hell after that.
JMHo
Pretty much the Gospel is what is preached from the pulpit. When led to the pastor will preach sermons which steps on some toes, it’s how the Spirit leads him. His main emphasis is on leading souls to Christ. He condemns the sin as he does other sins, but not the sinner, their own sin itself condemns them. The pastor and deacons do not kowtow to the PC crowd. If it isn’t Biblical it’s not happening in the church.
As for the protest, fine fly to it but they can stay off church property. If they show up inside and cause disruptions we have a couple of retired police officers who are members who will toss them out on their butts.
“Christianity has collapsed in this country in large part because it began preaching the doctrine of retreating before evil and submitting to evil rather than confronting evil.”
Confronting evil, or killing people who disagree with you? What country has converted TO CHRIST by the use of the sword? That is the theology of Islam, not Jesus Christ!
A sword was to be used in self-defense. And I’m a mighty odd pacifist, given 25+ years in the military, ample combat time and my CCW permit.
“People who will go quietly to the cattle cars as long as the legal machine has obeyed it’s own rules aren’t Christians or citizens...”
What, then, was Jesus Christ? Did He gut Pilate like a fish? Did Peter take up arms against the Romans? Did he fight at Masada? Did Paul fight to prevent the destruction of Jerusalem?
Who are you following? Your pride, or the Apostles and Jesus Christ Himself?
I don’t accept the premise. The marriage issue we’re talking about is not the religious sacrament, but the granting and execution of caesar’s “marriage” license. Two very distinct things. Where American churches went wrong is by agreeing to be the unpaid facilitators of caesar’s licensing scheme. The license has never been required for churches to perform the religious marriage ceremony and still isn’t.
Churches that act as caesar’s willing and eager agent should not be surprised when caesar expects them to practice roman morality.
There is and has been a very easy solution to this for the churches: stop acting as caesar’s agent for solemnizing “marriage” licenses! There is a very easy solution for Christians who object to caesar’s twisted definition of what is “marriage.” Refuse to buy the license! Those who have the bad sense to get caesar’s license can have caesar’s judge do the paperwork. The church is not required to be involved.
And it's not a case of "killing people you don't agree with" at any rate, it's a case of resiting violations of multiple portions of the Constitution when they cross the line and encroach on our freedom of religion,. No "you don't agree with" involved since the Constitution is the overriding law of the land. "Who violate what the Constitution states are our inalienable rights", fits, not game playing characterizations.
The worst nightmare of the fascist regime now coming into being is that Christians in this country will stop fighting one another and resist with massive demonstrations and civil disobedience long before any of them are "killing anyone they don't agree with".
The Federal Government has gotten to the point that it prefers to use force when force isn't required because it is so seldom actually taken to task for not exhausting other means before resorting to force. When drones starting blowing up the wrong addresses as often as SWAT teams raid the wrong house, maybe you'll consider the meaning of an inalienable right in a different light.
"Oops, sorry, we blew up you and your whole family. As punishment, one branch of government will pay tax dollars to another branch of government or to a government sponsored group".
Substituting "Christian witness" for you inalienable rights may be fine when Christianity is outlawed by Rome and Christians are as often slaves as free citizens, but going quietly into the night is not being either as wise as a serpent or as harmless as a dove. Doves don't encourage dove hunting.
I advocate fighting within the law and our political system. I reject calls to kill those we disagree with:
“I do no equivocate on meeting force with force when persecution turns the corner from soft persecution to hard persecution.
If I’m approved by God to fight and kill Iraqis in a Just War, then Just War applies to terror caused by my own ‘fellow’ citizens if this turns to hard persecution.”
Do y’all think hordes of homosexuals are going to show up at your house to rape your kids? Get a grip! We’ll be passed over for promotion, or fined for failing to do XYZ. Our churches will be taxed.
I think y’all are a bunch of blowhards, beating your chests when you ought to be looking at how to win at the ballot box. And praying for revival. Pushing a violent solution won’t help either.
1 Corinthians 5:11
“But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.”
Scripture is quite clear on the matter, including the matter of associating with “Christians” who claim same-sex marriage is not sinful and welcome unrepentant sinners as brothers and sisters in Christ.
I’m not sure of your point, but you seem to be making light of same-sex “marriage”. Homosexuality itself is treated as an abomination by scripture, but those other “inappropriate” activities you mentioned were also sinful. Calling them “inappropriate” makes light of the scriptural fact that unrepentant sin of any kind leads to damnation.
Now you can claim that none of this is sin, including any sex outside of marriage, but scripture is clear. It’s a tough standard in this day and age to be sure, but as you note, people were dealing with the same issues back then. The solution was the same: repent and turn away from sin.
I took an oath to defend the friggin' Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic and there was no expiration date mentioned. Furthermore, I take my faith in Christ and desire for my grand children to live in a Christian society just as seriously as I take that oath which means neither one is negotiable, subject to the ever shifting sands of legalism, elections, or anything else that runs counter to the inalienable rights our Constitution acknowledges.
You have a nice day
Well said.
Many modern churches tolerate a wide variety of sin: divorce, fornication, etc. I don’t know how they can condemn homosexuality when they look the other way when they allow unmarried heterosexual couples who are living together to be members.
Divorce is another serious issue that many modern churches seem to accept without reservation. God hates divorce (Malachi 2:16). Remarriage after divorcing is adultery (Mark 1:1-12). Yet, I see churches all the time claim divorce is OK if it’s a “bad” marriage.
It’s a rare church in this day and age that truly opposes sexual immorality, but I agree with what you wrote. We aren’t even supposed to eat with professing Christians who preach heresy. They are worse than unbelievers, because a Christian represents Christ. If that salt loses it’s saltiness, what hope do sinners have that go to those churches seeking redemption?
I may be wrong, but it seems to me that you and Rashputin are addressing two different issues.
Rashputin is addressing the question more as a constitutional issue, while you are looking more toward the religious aspect. My apologies if I have misconstrued your posts.
Christ could have easily annihilated any opposition. He could have called down legions of angels to slaughter as many humans as he wanted, but...He went willingly to the cross to be tortured and die on our behalf.
The apostles had powers similar to Christ’s that were granted to them by the Holy Spirit. It seems reasonable to assume they could have called for angels to slaughter their enemies, too. Yet, it seems they did not.
Imagine a young teen girl saying to her boyfriend while they are parking, “We can’t. I might get pregnant. I’m not on birth control.”
Picture a second scene. Two guys in a car also desiring sexual release on each other.
Are they the same? Similarities include a car, some kind of privacy, and a physiological drive toward sexual release.
The differences are huge. Different types of body, different urges, different potentialities.
Is it irrational for those differences to result in entirely different cultural approaches and involvements?
In fact, can you name one culture that actively promoted homosexual marriage so that our western governments would have had the thought: “Oh we better not do marriage licenses for guys and gals. Who knows when 2 guys will come in wanting their piece of paper, too?”
Would that have been a thought that would have been taken seriously in 1800’s America, 1500’s Europe?
This, RKBA, is a NEW thing. The only knowledge we have with cultures that practiced homosexuality is that it didn’t last, and it was a bad idea.
So, at what point would the Church have said to the culture, “we can’t go along with government involvement in marriage”?
I want to be sure you've read correctly what I've said, so I've posted a critical piece of it above.
However, it's my conclusion that when it had gotten really bad that you wouldn't have been one to join the Revolution in 1776.
“So, at what point would the Church have said to the culture, “we can’t go along with government involvement in marriage”?
They already did in the early and mid 20th century, but didn’t internalize the lesson. In cases of miscegnation several parts of the church were forced to choose God’s law or caesar’s. Several chose God’s law and performed marriage ceremonies without the license. Others didn’t. A priest or two was martyred.
Unfortunately few parts of the church took away the lesson that in some things you can be of both God and caesar, but in others you simply can’t.
I don’t think your thoughts are misplaced. I just don’t think the church can be faulted for accepting the universality of man/woman marriage and the common definition of thousands of years of history between church and government.
We are, after all, told by the Apostle Paul to obey every law and ordinance of man, given the reality that the government is for the good of civil order. When government pursuing evil regarding civil order, the implication is that the people of God are to follow God and not Caesar.
That may well be the case by the end of this month.
One means of civil disobedience IS to separate ourselves from government involvement in any of our marriages.
“However, it’s my conclusion that when it had gotten really bad that you wouldn’t have been one to join the Revolution in 1776.”
Well, 8 generations ago, my ancestor had his home burnt down and was tarred & feathered for refusing to take up arms against the British government. I probably would have sided with him. Nor do I see where the US Constitution (which I would have opposed signing in light of what has followed) has brought us significantly more freedom. I think it is increasingly clear that the freedom of religion promised in the US Constitution, as well as the 9th & 10th Amendments, are meaningless to modern society.
OTOH, had I lived in Virginia in the 1860s, I’d probably have fought for the South. Not for slavery, but for the right to choose one’s own government. The right to quit the Union was largely assumed at the time the Constitution was signed.
I suspect, xzins, I’ve had more bullets fired my way in combat than you had as a chaplain. When I left the military in 2008, I was still proud of America and believed our government was worth fighting for. I never would have guessed we were so spiritually and morally weak as to generate the utter collapse in any semblance of sanity that the homosexual / transsexual / anything sexual activists have convinced America to adopt. My tagline expresses my astonishment at what a decade has seen us become.
I find the idea that you and others are going to fight an armed rebellion against the US government ridiculous. I have no intention of putting down my Bible, picking up a gun and shooting bankers or cops who are obeying the laws our legislatures have put in place.
America is not God’s Chosen. We are not Israel. God has not promised us anything. As long as we mostly worshiped Him, He protected us. As a nation, we’ve turned out backs on Him. “Piss Christ” is a pretty accurate description of what America is doing right now. If we as a nation DO NOT REPENT, it is GOD’S JUDGMENT we must fear.
Get off your soapbox and get on your knees. Christians have suffered persecution before. It looks like we will face it very soon in America. And godly people will not respond by going on killing sprees. While time allows, pray, vote, and campaign. When time runs out, pray.
Throughout history, when given half the chance, caesar has routinely persecuted the church. Russia and the east in the 20th century, Mexico in the 1920’s, the ottoman empire in the 1920’s, most of the middle east today. Our country has mostly refrained, but we’ve had our moments as well. Its no surprise that caesar has the church in the crosshairs. Caesar is all about power.
St. Paul was dealing with a very young church and the reality of a caesar that was more inclined to crucify Christians and kill them in the arena than anything. His writings are a reflection of that. And ironically, caesar had him killed just the same.
As for civil disobedience, I don’t even think of performing marriages without caesar’s license as civil disobedience: it’s completely legal. Just a change of approach and thinking. And a welcome one.
It is a public act of marriage that does not participate in the government’s program. However, it will also be arguably ‘legal’ in a court of law.
Circumventing the government program is civil disobedience in my mind. There’s no requirement that others agree with me on that. But, I AM a pastor, and I am bonded by the state to solemnize marriages.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.