[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson

Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests)

What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer

Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic?

War in Ukraine Turns on Russia

what happened during total solar eclipse

Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage

Earth is Scorched with Heat

Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman

Vibe Shift

A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound.

Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages

When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements

CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions

This Speech Just Broke the Internet

This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God!


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

United States News
See other United States News Articles

Title: Romans chapter thirteenBy Adam Clarke 1731
Source: http://www.christianpatriot.com/romans-13%20_adam_clarke.htm
URL Source: http://www.christianpatriot.com/romans-13%20_adam_clarke.htm
Published: Apr 26, 2015
Author: Pastor Bob Celeste ACP
Post Date: 2015-04-26 17:46:45 by BobCeleste
Keywords: ACP, Revolt, Revolution
Views: 835
Comments: 12

Romans chapter thirteen
By Adam Clarke 1731

First Christians and Preachers read Pastor Adam Clarke’s 1731 commentary on Romans 13, and then Preachers preached rebellion and Christian men responded, for King George was a lawless law breaker. After reading what Christian men and preachers read as written by Pastor Clarke 45 years before the drafting of the Declaration of Independence, you will find the entire Declaration of Independence. Then using the same standards as did our forefathers, the founders of these United States, ask yourself, your friends and fellow Christian men, “has not Obama, Clinton, Carter, Bush one and two duplicated King Geroge to the point where we, as Christian Preachers should preach revolution and Christian men should arm themselves and revolt?”


CHAPTER XIII.

Subjection to civil governors inculcated, from the consideration
that civil government is according to the ordinance of God; and
that those who resist the lawfully constituted authorities
shall receive condemnation, 1, 2.
And those who are obedient shall receive praise, 3.
The character of a lawful civil governor, 4.
The necessity of subjection, 5.
The propriety of paying lawful tribute, 6, 7.
Christians should love one another, 8-10.
The necessity of immediate conversion to God proved from the
shortness and uncertainty of time, 11, 12.
How the Gentiles should walk so as to please God, and put on
Christ Jesus in order to their salvation, 13, 14.


Pastor Adam Clarke's notes on Romans XIII.

To see with what propriety the apostle introduces the important subjects which he handles in this chapter, it is necessary to make a few remarks on the circumstances in which the Church of God then was.

It is generally allowed that this epistle was written about the year of our Lord 58, four or five years after the edict of the Emperor Claudius, by which all the Jews were banished from Rome. And as in those early times the Christians were generally confounded with the Jews, it is likely that both were included in this decree.

For what reason this edict was issued does not satisfactorily appear. Suetonius tells us that it was because the Jews were making continual disturbances under their leader Christus. (See ACC for Ac 18:2.) That the Jews were in general an uneasy and seditious people is clear enough from every part of their own history. They had the most rooted aversion to the heathen government; and it was a maxim with them that the world was given to the Israelites; that they should have supreme rule every where, and that the Gentiles should be their vassals. With such political notions, grounded on their native restlessness, it is no wonder if in several instances they gave cause of suspicion to the Roman government, who would be glad of an opportunity to expel from the city persons whom they considered dangerous to its peace and security; nor is it unreasonable on this account to suppose, with Dr. Taylor, that the Christians, under a notion of being the peculiar people of God, and the subjects of his kingdom alone, might be in danger of being infected with those unruly and rebellious sentiments: therefore the apostle shows them that they were, notwithstanding their honours and privileges as Christians, bound by the strongest obligations of conscience to be subject to the civil government. The judicious commentator adds: "I cannot forbear observing the admirable skill and dexterity with which the apostle has handled the subject. His views in writing are always comprehensive on every point; and he takes into his thoughts and instructions all parties that might probably reap any benefit by them. As Christianity was then growing, and the powers of the world began to take notice of it, it was not unlikely that this letter might fall into the hands of the Roman magistrates. And whenever that happened it was right, not only that they should see that Christianity was no favourer of sedition, but likewise that they should have an opportunity of reading their own duty and obligations. But as they were too proud and insolent to permit themselves to be instructed in a plain, direct way, therefore the apostle with a masterly hand, delineates and strongly inculcates the magistrate's duty; while he is pleading his cause with the subject, and establishing his duty on the most sure and solid ground, he dexterously sides with the magistrate, and vindicates his power against any subject who might have imbibed seditious principles, or might be inclined to give the government any disturbance; and under this advantage he reads the magistrate a fine and close lecture upon the nature and ends of civil government. A way of conveyance so ingenious and unexceptionable that even Nero himself, had this epistle fallen into his hands, could not fail of seeing his duty clearly stated, without finding any thing servile or flattering on the one hand, or offensive or disgusting on the other.

"The attentive reader will be pleased to see with what dexterity, truth, and gravity the apostle, in a small compass, affirms and explains the foundation, nature, ends, and just limits of the magistrate's authority, while he is pleading his cause, and teaching the subject the duty and obedience he owes to the civil government."-Dr. Taylor's Notes, page 352.

Verse 1. Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers.] This is a very strong saying, and most solemnly introduced; and we must consider the apostle as speaking, not from his own private judgment, or teaching a doctrine of present expediency, but declaring the mind of God on a subject of the utmost importance to the peace of the world; a doctrine which does not exclusively belong to any class of people, order of the community, or official situations, but to every soul; and, on the principles which the apostle lays down, to every soul in all possible varieties of situation, and on all occasions. And what is this solemn doctrine? It is this: Let every soul be subject to the higher powers. Let every man be obedient to the civil government under which the providence of God has cast his lot.

For there is no power but of God] As God is the origin of power, and the supreme Governor of the universe, he delegates authority to whomsoever he will; and though in many cases the governor himself may not be of God, yet civil government is of him; for without this there could be no society, no security, no private property; all would be confusion and anarchy, and the habitable world would soon be depopulated. In ancient times, God, in an especial manner, on many occasions appointed the individual who was to govern; and he accordingly governed by a Divine right, as in the case of Moses, Joshua, the Hebrew judges, and several of the Israelitish kings. In after times, and to the present day, he does that by a general superintending providence which he did before by especial designation. In all nations of the earth there is what may be called a constitution-a plan by which a particular country or state is governed; and this constitution is less or more calculated to promote the interests of the community. The civil governor, whether he be elective or hereditary, agrees to govern according to that constitution. Thus we may consider that there is a compact and consent between the governor and the governed, and in such a case, the potentate may be considered as coming to the supreme authority in the direct way of God's providence; and as civil government is of God, who is the fountain of law, order, and regularity, the civil governor, who administers the laws of a state according to its constitution, is the minister of God. But it has been asked: If the ruler be an immoral or profligate man, does he not prove himself thereby to be unworthy of his high office, and should he not be deposed? I answer, No: if he rule according to the constitution, nothing can justify rebellion against his authority. He may be irregular in his own private life; he may be an immoral man, and disgrace himself by an improper conduct: but if he rule according to the law; if he make no attempt to change the constitution, nor break the compact between him and the people; there is, therefore, no legal ground of opposition to his civil authority, and every act against him is not only rebellion in the worst sense of the word, but is unlawful and absolutely sinful.

Nothing can justify the opposition of the subjects to the ruler but overt attempts on his part to change the constitution, or to rule contrary to law. When the ruler acts thus he dissolves the compact between him and his people; his authority is no longer binding, because illegal; and it is illegal because he is acting contrary to the laws of that constitution, according to which, on being raised to the supreme power, he promised to govern. This conduct justifies opposition to his government; but I contend that no personal misconduct in the ruler, no immorality in his own life, while he governs according to law, can justify either rebellion against him or contempt of his authority. For his political conduct he is accountable to his people; for his moral conduct he is accountable to God, his conscience, and the ministers of religion. A king may be a good moral man, and yet a weak, and indeed a bad and dangerous prince. He may be a bad man, and stained with vice in his private life, and yet be a good prince. SAUL was a good moral man, but a bad prince, because he endeavoured to act contrary to the Israelitish constitution: he changed some essential parts of that constitution, as I have elsewhere shown; (see ACC for Ac 13:22;) he was therefore lawfully deposed. James the Second was a good moral man, as far as I can learn, but he was a bad and dangerous prince; he endeavoured to alter, and essentially change the British constitution, both in Church and state, therefore he was lawfully deposed. It would be easy, in running over the list of our own kings, to point out several who were deservedly reputed good kings, who in their private life were very immoral. Bad as they might be in private life, the constitution was in their hands ever considered a sacred deposit, and they faithfully preserved it, and transmitted it unimpaired to their successors; and took care while they held the reins of government to have it impartially and effectually administered.

It must be allowed, notwithstanding, that when a prince, howsoever heedful to the laws, is unrighteous in private life, his example is contagious; morality, banished from the throne, is discountenanced by the community; and happiness is diminished in proportion to the increase of vice. On the other hand, when a king governs according to the constitution of his realms and has his heart and life governed by the laws of his God, he is then a double blessing to his people; while he is ruling carefully according to the laws, his pious example is a great means of extending and confirming the reign of pure morality among his subjects. Vice is discredited from the throne, and the profligate dare not hope for a place of trust and confidence, (however in other respects he may be qualified for it,) because he is a vicious man.

As I have already mentioned some potentates by name, as apt examples of the doctrines I have been laying down, my readers will naturally expect that, on so fair an opportunity, I should introduce another; one in whom the double blessing meets; one who, through an unusually protracted reign, during every year of which he most conscientiously watched over the sacred constitution committed to his care, not only did not impair this constitution, but took care that its wholesome laws should be properly administered, and who in every respect acted as the father of his people, and added to all this the most exemplary moral conduct perhaps ever exhibited by a prince, whether in ancient or modern times; not only tacitly discountenancing vice by his truly religious conduct, but by his frequent proclamations most solemnly forbidding Sabbath-breaking, profane swearing, and immorality in general. More might be justly said, but when I have mentioned all these things, (and I mention them with exultation; and with gratitude to God,) I need scarcely add the venerable name of GEORGE the Third, king of Great Britain; as every reader will at once perceive that the description suits no potentate besides. I may just observe, that notwithstanding his long reign has been a reign of unparalleled troubles and commotions in the world, in which his empire has always been involved, yet, never did useful arts, ennobling sciences, and pure religion gain a more decided and general ascendancy: and much of this, under God, is owing to the manner in which this king has lived, and the encouragement he invariably gave to whatever had a tendency to promote the best interests of his people. Indeed it has been well observed, that, under the ruling providence of God, it was chiefly owing to the private and personal virtues of the sovereign that the house of Brunswick remained firmly seated on the throne amidst the storms arising from democratical agitations and revolutionary convulsions in Europe during the years 1792-1794. The stability of his throne amidst these dangers and distresses may prove a useful lesson to his successors, and show them the strength of a virtuous character, and that morality and religion form the best bulwark against those great evils to which all human governments are exposed. This small tribute of praise to the character and conduct of the British king, and gratitude to God for such a governor, will not be suspected of sinister motive; as the object of it is, by an inscrutable providence, placed in a situation to which neither envy, flattery, nor even just praise can approach, and where the majesty of the man is placed in the most awful yet respectable ruins. I have only one abatement to make: had this potentate been as adverse from WAR as he was from public and private vices, he would have been the most immaculate sovereign that ever held a sceptre or wore a crown.

But to resume the subject, and conclude the argument: I wish particularly to show the utter unlawfulness of rebellion against a ruler, who, though he may be incorrect in his moral conduct, yet rules according to the laws; and the additional blessing of having a prince, who, while his political conduct is regulated by the principles of the constitution, has his heart and life regulated by the dictates of eternal truth, as contained in that revelation which came from God.


Verse 2. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. ] He who sets himself in order against this order of God; and they who resist, they who obstinately, and for no right reason, oppose the ruler, and strive to unsettle the constitution, and to bring about illegal changes, shall receive to themselves damnation.] they shall be condemned both by the spirit and letter of that constitution, which, under pretence of defending or improving, they are indirectly labouring to subvert.


Verse 3 . For rulers are not a terror to good works] Here the apostle shows the civil magistrate what he should be: he is clothed with great power, but that power is entrusted to him, not for the terror and oppression of the upright man, but to overawe and punish the wicked. It is, in a word, for the benefit of the community, and not for the aggrandizement of himself, that God has entrusted the supreme civil power to any man. If he should use this to wrong, rob, spoil, oppress, and persecute his subjects, he is not only a bad man, but also a bad prince. He infringes on the essential principles of law and equity. Should he persecute his obedient, loyal subjects, on any religious account, this is contrary to all law and right; and his doing so renders him unworthy of their confidence, and they must consider him not as a blessing but a plague. Yet, even in this case, though in our country it would be a breach of the constitution, which allows every man to worship God according to his conscience, the truly pious will not feel that even this would justify rebellion against the prince; they are to suffer patiently, and commend themselves and their cause to him that judgeth righteously. It is an awful thing to rebel, and the cases are extremely rare that can justify rebellion against the constituted authorities. See the doctrine on Romans 13:1.

Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power?] If thou wouldst not live in fear of the civil magistrate, live according to the laws; and thou mayest expect that he will rule according to the laws, and consequently instead of incurring blame thou wilt have praise. This is said on the supposition that the ruler is himself a good man: such the laws suppose him to be; and the apostle, on the general question of obedience and protection, assumes the point that the magistrate is such.


Verse 4. For he is the minister of God to thee for good] Here the apostle puts the character of the ruler in the strongest possible light. He is the minister of God-the office is by Divine appointment: the man who is worthy of the office will act in conformity to the will of God: and as the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears open to their cry, consequently the ruler will be the minister of God to them for good.

He beareth not the sword in vain] His power is delegated to him for the defence and encouragement of the good, and the punishment of the wicked; and he has authority to punish capitally, when the law so requires: this the term sword leads us to infer.

For he is the minister of God, a revenger] For he is God's vindictive minister, to execute wrath; eiv orghn, to inflict punishment upon the transgressors of the law; and this according to the statutes of that law; for God's civil ministers are never allowed to pronounce or inflict punishment according to their own minds or feeling, but according to the express declarations of the law.


Verse 5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. There is a necessity that ye should be subject, not only for wrath, on account of the punishment which will be inflicted on evil doers, but also for conscience' sake; not only to avoid punishment, but also to preserve a clear conscience. For, as civil government is established in the order of God for the support, defence, and happiness of society, they who transgress its laws, not only expose themselves to the penalties assigned by the statutes, but also to guilt in their own consciences, because they sin against God. Here are two powerful motives to prevent the infraction of the laws and to enforce obedience.
1. The dread of punishment; this weighs with the ungodly.
2. The keeping of a good conscience, which weighs powerfully with every person who fears God. These two motives should be frequently urged both among professors and profane.



In Congress, July 4, 1776.

The UNANIMOUS DECLARATION
of the
THIRTEEN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their

Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent

of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the

Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing

its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient

causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to

right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of

abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is

their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.

To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
H
e has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
H
e has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
H
e has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless these people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
H
e has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
H
e has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
H
e has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
H
e has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
H
e has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
H
e has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
H
e has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
H
e has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
H
e has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
F
or quartering large bodies of armed troops among us.
F
or protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States
F
or cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world
F
or imposing Taxes on us without our Consent For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury.
F
or transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences.
F
or abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies.
F
or taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments.
F
or suspending our own Legislatures and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
H
e has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
H
e has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
H
e is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
H
e has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
H
e has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
I
n every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury.
A
Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
N
or have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren.
W
e have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us.
W
e have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here.
W
e have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity.
W
e must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

WE, THEREFORE, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress,

Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of

the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be

FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are Absolved from all

Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be

totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances,

establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.


And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we

mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
The signers with links to short biographies of all 56 signers of the Declaration.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: All (#0) (Edited)

I realize this is long, but it would have been longer had I done as I had originally planned and used Pastor Clarke's study of Romans 13 as only part of my own study, but the more I read Adam Clarke's 1731 essay, the more I realized that it needed no additional comment from me.

But whereas verses 1-5 take up so much space and time to read, I felt it necessary to stop after only 5 verses, here on LF, but will post the entire study on ChristianPatriot.com in due time.

But Adam's essay on verses 1-5 is more than enough to convince a Christian that we are completely justified in revolting.

BobCeleste  posted on  2015-04-26   17:52:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: BobCeleste (#1)

But Adam's essay on verses 1-5 is more than enough to convince a Christian that we are completely justified in revolting.

Bob, the problem with this is that Adam's concept of history is so divorced from the truth that it calls into question the rest of what he said.

To wit, this statement of his:

"They had the most rooted aversion to the heathen government; and it was a maxim with them that the world was given to the Israelites; that they should have supreme rule every where, and that the Gentiles should be their vassals. With such political notions, grounded on their native restlessness, it is no wonder if in several instances they gave cause of suspicion to the Roman government, who would be glad of an opportunity to expel from the city persons whom they considered dangerous to its peace and security; nor is it unreasonable on this account to suppose, with Dr. Taylor, that the Christians, under a notion of being the peculiar people of God, and the subjects of his kingdom alone, might be in danger of being infected with those unruly and rebellious sentiments: therefore the apostle shows them that they were, notwithstanding their honours and privileges as Christians, bound by the strongest obligations of conscience to be subject to the civil government."

He's serious. However, the attitudes he ascribes to Jews are a joke. That's not Jewish doctrine, and it never was. That is, rather, a Christian mangling of Jewish doctrine - in other words, a slander.

Throwing your life away following the maxims of a man who wrote fantasy and believed it was history is not a good bet.

Don't kill means don't kill. How you kick at the goad! You're angry and you want to kill. Don't.

Either that or you're trying to provoke others to join with a movement to rise up and kill, and that would not be good for them either.

Bob, you're old. You will meet your maker soon. Don't do it with blood on your hands and invective on your head. Accept peacefully what you cannot change and go into the light peacefully, as Christ ask of all.

Stop working so hard to find a way to justify killing over politics. It can't be done, and every step you take to trying to find a way is a step off Christ's strait and narrow path.

Stop. Your cross is bearing with things that are unbearable to you and that provoke you to rage. Bear your cross in peace to the end and find your reward. If you persuade yourself that it's ok to go out in a blaze of glory and gore, you will wake up in the hands of the living God, and he will tell you he doesn't know you. Do Not Kill - it means just that. Tend your garden in peace and go to your end in peace, not like this. Not like this.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-04-27   8:46:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Vicomte13, BobCeleste (#2) (Edited)

" Don't kill means don't kill "

Understood.

But tell me, Vic, how do you square God's instructions to not kill, with the instances in the Bible, where God instructed them to capture a land, and to kill every one, and every thing there?

There seems to me to be an inconsistency / contradiction there.

In this life, I have no desire to kill anyone, or any thing. However, if someone intends to harm me, or my family, I would pop a cap on them. I do not think the Word of God prohibits self defense, or punishment for crime ( like murder ).

I would appreciate your comments to help me better understand! Thanks in advance!

Regards, Stoner

Si vis pacem, para bellum

Stoner  posted on  2015-04-27   9:48:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: Vicomte13 (#2)

Stop working so hard to find a way to justify killing over politics. It can't be done, and every step you take to trying to find a way is a step off Christ's strait and narrow path.

I can no-longer sit by and allow babies to be slaughtered in the womb because politicians serve satan, the god of death, rather than Christ, the God of life. If I thought for even a micro second, that killing evil men and women would cost me my salvation, I would stop, but I know it will not I know that the evil of this nation must be eradicated, that Christian men must stop belly aching and making lame excuses, while babies are being slaughtered as little human blood sacrifices to the god of the politicians, the police, the courts and the press.

I appreciate your concern, but it is more of men than of Christ and Scripture. The end of the Book of Revelation tells us the only way to lose our salvation, and that must be done voluntarily with premeditation and a lot of work.

www.christianpatriot.com/07-25-2014.htm

BobCeleste  posted on  2015-04-27   10:04:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: Stoner (#3)

But tell me, Vic, how do you square God's instructions to not kill, with the instances in the Bible, where God instructed them to capture a land, and to kill every one, and every thing there?

There seems to me to be an inconsistency / contradiction there.

There is no contradiction, there is simply a refu7sal by many to read the Thou shalt not kill, as it is written in ancient Hebrew and to trace that ancient Hebrew word.

Exodus 20: 13 Thou shalt not kill (ratsach}. ratsach means, thou shalt not take defenseless human life. It is not a prohibition against war, or hunting, or killing in self defense or killing to protect ones family or loved ones, it does men that society and individuals are not to kill defenseless humans, such as little babies trapped in the womb, and those like Terri who are murdered while in a coma for convenience and or filthy blood money's sake.

1 Samuel 15 tells us how we are to fight, it says kill them all, it implies and Hebrews 9:27 dictates, and let God sort them out.

BobCeleste  posted on  2015-04-27   10:11:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: Stoner (#3) (Edited)

But tell me, Vic, how do you square God's instructions to not kill, with the instances in the Bible, where God instructed them to capture a land, and to kill every one, and every thing there?

There seems to me to be an inconsistency / contradiction there.

I would appreciate your comments to help me better understand! Thanks in advance!

Regards, Stoner

I would appreciate your comments to help me better understand! Thanks in advance!

Hi, Stoner.

Ok let's go through this. The point you raise is a valid one, that I've seen raised a thousand times, so let's really focus on it.

First, let's remember the nature of human life, and life in general, of all the animals. We all die. And we die when God says. Not a sparrow falls without the consent of the Father, and we're worth more than sparrows (Jesus said that).

Nevertheless, "worth more" or not, each and every one of us is on the chopping block, we're all going to die, and it will be God who directs it to happen. It doesn't matter whether we're Canaanites in ancient Israel, or Israelites attacking the Canaanites, or Stoner or Vicomte13, God has condemned us all to death, and we shall die.

God kills us, but God did not generally hand over the reins of that decision to men to do is. God knows what he is doing, and why. But men do not. Before God sends the Flood, Genesis remarks that the world was filled with violence. God sends the Flood because of violence. And once the Flood is done, God gives man two commandments. The first is that he now may eat animals (any and all animals), but the second is that man must not shed man's blood - that he who sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed.

So, God gives man a prohibition not just on killing other men, but also the command to do justice in those cases where a man's blood HAS been shed.

It's a blanket law, given to Noah's family - and therefore, to all of mankind.

And that's the rule. It's the rule for us. It was the rule for the Founding Fathers. It was the rule for the Romans. It was the rule for the Canaanites, and the general rule for the Israelites also: no killing.

Now, from the time of Nimrod onward, men DID kill other men, and ride them down, for the purpose of establishing and keeping empires. And where did God ever authorize it? He never did.

Jesus DID authorize the Apostles to carry swords for their own defense, but when Simon the Zealot became enthused about that, Jesus cut them off with "ENOUGH!", and when Peter sought to defend him from arrest brandishing a sword, Jesus told him that those who live by the sword, die by the sword.

So yes, if your family is being assaulted and your only practicable means of defense is to "pop a cap on them", then God does understand and he would forgive the killing. However, God knows hearts and minds, and motivations: nothing is unknown to God. He will exonerate actual self-defense. But the man who escapes human justice by claiming a bogus self-defense will end up in the flames at judgment as a killer. One can lie to men, and justify one's self before men, but one cannot lie to God; God sees all.

It is only within that context that we can address the particular, special, unique case of ancient Israel.

To review, the context is that God kills everybody, in his time. He's God. But God has FORBIDDEN men from killing other men under all circumstances whatever except for the narrow case of self-defense, and to administer justice on a killer after properly determining guilt. (To have a fake judicial process that does not seek to determine truth, and that doesn't meet the standards of justice that God set out for trials in ancient Israel risks killing an innocent man.) God didn't impose the judicial rules of Israel on the world; he imposed the blanket law DO NOT KILL. We do not HAVE to execute murderers. God said to, but we can disregard him and refuse to follow his law on that, and God never said that those who refuse to kill murderers will be thrown into the fire at judgment - that is not on Jesus' list of damnable crimes. But God DID say not to kill. He showed, in the judicial standards of Israel, a way to avoid killing the innocent, by having a rigorous process requiring at least two witnesses. It's hard to meet that standard, and hard to execute people for murder under God's standard for Israel.

We're not Israelites and don't have to follow THAT particular procedure, BUT if we don't - if we have a laxer standard to make it easier on ourselves, but then execute the innocent - we are killers. And Jesus promised that at judgment killers will be thrown into the Lake of Fire for the second death.

So, it's no joke. If you establish freewheeling Texas-style justice and "inadvertently" execute the innocent, the failure in your judicial process - when you had the model God gave to Israel before your eyes in order to AVOID just that - is not going to be excused. If your judicial process is such that you are killing the innocent, you're a murderer and you're going into the flames.

Think carefully about the role of executioner. He takes it upon himself to inflict death on other men, for pay. He probably feels it is just, but HE doesn't get to set the standards of justice. God alone gets to set those standards, and God said DO NOT KILL, except the killers, God gave a judicial process to Israel to avoid killing the innocent UNLESS two witnesses perjure themselves. We don't follow that process. Texas doesn't. So, Texas sometimes kills the innocent, using an easier process. The executioner earns his living being paid to kill men. God put no shield at all in his law for people who kill "under the orders of others". Everybody is at Nuremburg in God's court. "I was under orders" is no excuse. Jesus said that three things that will get a man thrown into the fire at judgment are: killing, lying and cowardice. So, then, the killer dies the Second Death in hell. The man who kills an innocent man is damned. The man who lies in testimony to convict the innocent man. And the man who carries out orders to kill the innocent out of fear of authority is a COWARD, and God damns COWARDS.

In other words, there is NEVER ANY EXCUSE for killing the innocent. Not ever. Men are forbidden from killing men. If you take it into your hands to GET PAID to kill men as part of a system of "justice" that doesn't have the safeguards God showed the world in his law for Israel - to PREVENT ever killing the innocent - and you kill the innocent, then live by the sword, die by the sword. If you lie to procure a conviction, liars are thrown into hell. And if you're so afraid of another man, who has military command for example, that you will follow his orders to kill the innocent (rather than taking your gun and putting a bullet through HIS chest, in order to defend the innocent), then you're a coward and Jesus will throw you into hell also.

There is no escape. If you kill the innocent, in uniform or not, you are going to Hell. God gave no defense of "Respondeat Superior" to men. HE is the superior. He said what to do. If men disobey, do it their own way, and kill the innocent, in war, in police action, in justice, or as criminals, or as doctors in abortion clinics, they are killers, and killers are all thrown into hell by Jesus.

Unless they are forgiven. God forgives sin, but he only forgives it if it is REPENTED. And the problem with badges and uniforms and color of authority is that men who wear them and follow the procedures and orders tend to THINK of themselves as heroes and law abiding. But if they've killed the innocent, they're NOT obeying God's law, and they think that their ridiculous little human badge protects them and puts them in the right, their self-justification will cause them to neither feel remorse nor repent. And if they do not repent, they will not be forgiven.

We tell human beings in the courts of our own country "Ignorance of the law is no excuse", even when the law is overwhelming and we cannot possibly really know it. God's law of killing people is very short, very stern, very absolute, and has specific, narrow exceptions. "The honor of the nation", and "upholding the law" are NOT among the list of things for which God permits us to kill.

Can you kill to defend yourself or your family? If you have to, yes. Can you kill to build an empire? Not without damning yourself. Can you kill under orders? Not without damning yourself, unless you are killing in self-defense. And not "self-defense" as an American lawyer might twist logic to claim. Self- defense claimed before a judge who sees everything thought and knows every motivation, and who has expected people to die rather than disobey him (and who throws cowards into the flames).

It is not hard not to kill...UNLESS you go put yourself in harm's way in order to make a living, and in order to achieve glory. And then, Jesus warns you: live by the sword, die by the sword, and after that, judgment, by the God who said DO NOT KILL. It is perilous indeed to earn one's keep, or one's crown, by shedding blood. It's an investment that never pays off in the end.

So, that's the rule for mankind. It applies to all. It came from God after the Flood, and it was reiterated by Jesus, twice, on the last page of Scripture.

What, then are we to make of the Israelites entering Canaan?

First of all, we are to be very firm in the facts. The Israelites were a no- people, a collection of slaves brought out of Egypt. God hammered and killed the Egyptians, for having enslaved and killed so many Israelites. God choose this particular people and called them a no-people whom he MADE a people. It was the fact that God chose them and revealed things to them that made them a people. Before that, they were nothing but a polyglot of Egyptian slaves. Yes, at the heart of those slaves were the descendants of Abraham, but all God promised Abraham was that his heirs would have the land of Canaan.

Many of the slaves, perhaps most, were not lineal descendants of Abraham. They were, rather other people who had been slaves in Egypt who came out with them. By their circumcision, and by their presence at Sinai, they all became part of a covenant they did not keep. And so all but two of them died in the desert. The people who crossed into Canaan, were all Israelites born and circumcised in the desert - a people specifically made by God.

There was much else particularly peculiar about the Israelites. They were literally a no-people before - a people without a specific language, without a literature, without a culture. Abraham was a Mesopotamian. The Israelite slaves were born or bought in Egypt. This was not a people returning to a native land. It was a people that did not exist, who were created around a cultural principle of direct obedience to God, who had directly liberated them and then directly revealed themselves to him in power, through disaster, through the sea, through pillars of fire and smoke, and in voice and flame and thunder. This no-people were made into a people, a culture, with a new literature: the Torah. Other cultures evolve in place for eons, learn writing, and become literate. But Israel started as literally nothing, no land, no culture, no literature, no religion, no people.

God chose a people, gave them a desert experience that gave them a common culture, and gave them a singular piece of literate, the Torah, which was a constitution and a law book. God gave them a particular form of government: one with NO legislature, NO executive, and lots of judges, a high priesthood (from one family), and Urim and Thummim: oracles by which the high priest could always consult God directly.

No other nation in history has a history like this, because it is supernatural history. Slaves do not escape through the sudden death of all firstborn followed by parting seas and the drowning of an army. People do not flee en masse into a desert without water, with all of their cattle, and then survive intact there, with their animals, because God provided them food directly out of the sky, and God opened up rocks to provide water, and God also made it such that men and women wandering the desert for forty years did so wearing the same clothes they were wearing 40 years prior, and yet their clothes never wore out and their sandals never fell apart. God miraculously preserved this people, and established a government for them unlike any other, a government in which God ruled directly, made all of the laws, left NO lawmaking function or executive function to men, gave them judges and priests and an oracle by which to always be able to consult him to obtain answers.

So, this one particular people was chosen for a purpose. God made a point of saying (over and over) that he didn't choose them for any particular merit. In fact, they were a no-people: God created the Israelite race and culture in the Sinai. And he called them a perverse and stubborn people: these were people who had been slaves. Think of the descendants of American slaves; people born largely to poverty, unmalleable, hard, stubborn. And not very pious.

So, now let's look at Canaan. The Canaanites were the original inhabitants of the land. They had cultivated it and developed it. God made a point that he was giving Canaan, already flowing with agricultural wealth ("milk and honey" in the traditional translation) to the Israelites intact.

What of the Canaanites themselves? God singled them out for destruction, apparently because of specifically evil and abominable practices of child sacrifice. After all, would it not have been just, and easier, to simply hand Egypt over to the Israelites? Perhaps, but the Egyptians were not abominable to God. Although he smote them, God forbade the Israelites to ever abuse or mistreat Egyptians. At one time, after all, the Egyptians had saved Jacob and his family, and protected them and elevated them. Joseph was married to the daughter of an Egyptian priest. Also, Pharaoh had himself softened fairly early and would have let the Israelites go. It was God himself who kept hardening Pharaoh's heart, thereby inviting another blow. The ruin of Egypt under the plagues was a decision of God, no doubt in part a punishment for the Egyptian exploitation of Israelite slaves, but also as an example to everyone, for all ages, of the power of God. Moreover, the particular plagues of Egypt were each aimed directly at taking control of an element of each of the key gods of the Egyptian pantheon. God was not merely demonstrating his mastery over the Egyptians themselves, but also humiliating each of their gods and goddesses in turn.

But God didn't wipe out the Egyptians, and he didn't give their land to the Israelites. Instead, he focused on the Canaanites, on their land.

God had a people, and intended to rule them directly, to establish a "model kingdom" directly ruled by God. (This is why examining the Israelite law is so useful even if it does not directly apply to us: it came from the mind of God, and is God's statecraft.)

His people needed a land, and he chose Canaan. Why Canaan? The Canaanites practiced human sacrifice, especially of children. They were not merely "nature god" idolators, the rites they performed to their gods were in direct violation of the commandment against killing. They were a race of killers, who worshipped by killing the most innocent and offering the burnt offerings on altars not of lambs, but of human children.

Recall that all, even the Canaanites, are descended from Noah and his sons. Recall that even the Canaanites knew, by way of their ancestors, that killing people was wrong. God didn't leave a large body of law for mankind after the Flood, but "Do not kill people" was first and foremost. And the Canaanites made killing people a rite of their religion - their WAY of worshipping God was to commit the very evil that God had forbidden. And then to that the Canaanites added wanton, rampant temple prostitution. The Canaanites believed that Ba'al was their rain god, and that by having wild sexual orgies in their temples Ba'al would become aroused, and that the rain that would fall as the result was the semen of god falling upon the earth.

Really.

All of mankind were idolators of some sort until Christ, but God didn't damn all of mankind to be destroyed. He didn't damn the Egyptians, and he didn't even damn the Philistines. The Philistines were to be defeated, of course, but absolute annihilation was reserved for the Canaanites who stayed in the land. For their idolatry wasn't simply praying to statues, it was temple fornication and human sacrifice. If the Devil had religious rites, they would look very much like Canaanite worship.

There is a further very important thing: God did not command the Canaanites wiped out. He commanded that any Canaanites who did not FLEE were to be exterminated, in part because he knew that the Israelites would be seduced by their religion if they remained.

Nor did God harden the hearts of the Canaanites the way he did Pharaoh. The Canaanites could preserve their lives by fleeing. If they stood and fought for their property and their land, they were to be wiped out utterly. This was the death sentence of God on a culture, in detail, for their idolatry and murderousness. The only thing they could preserve would be their lives, if they gave everything else up and ran before the Israelites. If they stood and fought they were to be completely wiped out.

This was not the "normal order of things". In fact, NOTHING can be taken from the extermination of Canaan as an example for us, because God never spoke to US, and told us to go kill ANYBODY. God only ever did that to Israel, and when he did, it was in fire and voice from heaven - the Israelites knew God directly, each of them.

So, how do we square God's instructions not to kill with the specific instructions, to the Israelites alone, to slaughter the Canaanites, alone, who did not flee (other defeated races were not to be wiped out utterly)? It is simple: God judges and kills everyone, including Canaanites and Israelites, and you and me.

God made a people out of slaves, and made an example of Egypt in the process, shattering it, demonstrating that God's power is absolute, and that when God appoints the least of people - slaves - and he commands kings to stand aside for them, if they do not, he will break them to pieces.

And then God made an example of another people, a wealthy, powerful, aggressive and vicious people, people who sacrificed children to their gods. THOSE people, God made clear, were killers. Killers, idolators and prostitutes; of children destined to grow up as such. God ordered them off their land and to leave their property. They were to have nothing, to start over impoverished. Their poverty would free the ones who fled. No temples to perform their rites, no slaves to rape and torment, no wealth of the land to use to maintain the power. Leave with your lives, lose it all and start over as a no-people. Or stand and fight, and die for your sins.

That was the choice God gave to the Caananites. They did both. Some fled, and became new people. Others stood and fought, and died.

It was God's justice, and God's example, too, to all of the neighboring lands: Egypt is broken, the Canaanites are dead. I rule Israel. If you molest Israel, you shall die.

That's why. That's also why the case of Israel, as exemplary as it is, does not apply to any OTHER country or people. Did God ever reveal himself to any European in such a manner?

Actually, yes. God revealed his power through Joan of Arc, a peasant girl. She came out of nowhere and because of her, the first British Empire was destroyed in under two years. But God never told Joan to slaughter everybody, only how to drive a certain people away in certain battles. He gave her supernatural knowledge, and he unmanned the English and caused their courage and order to melt when she was present on the battlefield.

And did the English learn their lesson? No. They burnt her alive. Then they lost everything else they still had.

If we look across the arc of history, we find very few Christian warrior saints. God said "Don't kill", and he meant it. There are many warlike adventures in which people have claimed the mandate of God for their cause, but Joan of Arc is the most prominent case of actual divine signs and visitations in a war. According to the Muslims, God exults in war of the believers against the unbelievers, but this is untrue.

That is how one squares the specific violence God mandated in Canaan, with the command not to kill. God can use men to kill other men. But when he does so, he appears and says so.

If God speaks directly to you and your people, in pillar of fire, with parted seas, and manifests himself to all of you, and commands you to war to exterminate a murderous people he finds foul, you do it: God kills everybody, and if he chooses to use human agency to do it, that is his choice.

But if God has never spoken to you and told you to kill, then you're not chosen to kill, so obey him and don't. Period.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-04-27   15:37:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: BobCeleste (#4)

The end of the Book of Revelation tells us the only way to lose our salvation, and that must be done voluntarily with premeditation and a lot of work.

Yes. The end of the Book of Revelation says that men are judged by their deeds, and that Idolators, Killers, Cowards, Liars, Drug Peddlers and the Sexually Immoral are thrown into the fire.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-04-27   16:01:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: Vicomte13 (#7)

Yes. The end of the Book of Revelation says that men are judged by their deeds, and that Idolators, Killers, Cowards, Liars, Drug Peddlers and the Sexually Immoral are thrown into the fire.

They have already lost their salvation, they are damned. What I am talking about is the only way a Born Again Christian can lose his or her salvation. And it sure isn't by revolting against a g0vt that kills little babies trapped in the womb, offering the to the prince of this world as little defenseless human blood sacrifices.

BobCeleste  posted on  2015-04-27   16:33:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: BobCeleste (#5)

1 Samuel 15 tells us how we are to fight, it says kill them all,

1 Samuel 15 tells ANCIENT JEWS, in the Kingdom of Israel, ruled directly by God, how to fight.

We're not ancient Jews, this is not ancient Israel, God is not our legislator and king, and we do not have a high priest with Urim and Thummim at the head of our court.

You cannot read what God said to the Jews, under that covenant, and transfer it to yourself. You are not a Jew. Ancient Israel is gone. The Temple is gone, destroyed by God to remove it so that nobody CAN perform the ancient rites.

The commandments regarding war for Israelites, in Israel, ruled by God, apply to nobody in the world today. The only people they EVER applied to, according to the text itself!, is Israelites living in ancient Israel under the Sinai covenant.

WE are under a different covenant, two actually: with Noah, and in Christ.

WE are not to kill. And WE are to follow Christ and turn the other cheek and forgive and leave judgment up to God. THAT is the law for us, and THAT is the ONLY law for us.

Every time you read any law between Exodus 1 and Malachi and you think that law applies to YOU, you're wrong. That law applies to circumcised Jews living in ancient Israel under God's covenant. It never applied to anybody else.

And since Jesus new covenant and the destruction of the Temple, the laws of Exodus 1 through the end of Malachi are in force on precisely nobody on earth.

If you're reading it otherwise, you're reading it wrong, and if you kill people based on anything between Exodus 1 and the end of Malachi, you are going to Hell.

God never granted you the authority to kill. You don't have it. If you're trying to get it from Samuel, then you are mistaking a modern Gentile American under the New Covenant with a circumcised Israelite in the Kingdom of Israel under the Sinai Covenant. But none of that applies to you, and if you read it as though it does, you'll be taking laws that DON'T apply to you and using them to override laws that DO apply to you. Namely: don't kill.

If you must go into an abortion clinic to prevent an abortion by force, you can do that without killing. Then you'll be arrested and imprisoned and that will be that.

The abortion doctor and the mother who murders her baby will be thrown into the lake of fire - they're killers. They could repent, but they won't.

But if you go charging in there guns blazing, you're going to be thrown into the lake of fire with them.

You're working yourself into a self-righteous fury using words from the Bible, but you're not reading it right.

Go back to Exodus and LOOK at specifically WHOM the Sinai covenant applies. Circumcised Hebrews, in Israel, following the Law.

You are none of those things. You are a Gentile Christian. Follow Christ.

Pray, forgive, be peaceful, give any excess you have away, and put away your sword.

IF God Himself speaks to you, appears in power - APPEARS - you need a VISIBLE appearance, with majesty, you need miracles - and HE commands you to go kill somebody, then you test that vision by making him perform a miracle, and you make that vision acknowledge that Jesus is the Son of God and the way and the truth and the life.

And then, if God - the real one - really orders you to do kill somebody OR ELSE - you may do it. But if you don't get the visible and audible visitation, and you don't get the miracle, and you don't get the acknowledgment of Christ, then don't persuade yourself that you can override the Elohiym and Jesus, because you're going to fail to finish the race if you do, and that would be a calamity.

CALM DOWN and THINK. STOP trying to make the Law of Sinai apply to you. It does not. None of it. Samuel is for Jews in Israel, NOT Gentiles in Maine! If God wants you to kill somebody, he will appear to you and perform a miracle and recognize Jesus and then tell you to proceed. If you don't get all three of those points of reference, don't go talking yourself into believing that you can do what God forbade man in Genesis, and that Jesus forbade you also.

It doesn't work scripturally, it doesn't work logically, and it will not work out for YOU in the end.

Come on. Pray for God's justice. Pray for a visitation and a miracle and a command to kill, if you want. But don't kill anybody unless God tells you to IN PERSON, with miracles, and with an acknowledgment of Jesus.

If God wants you to be Samson, he'll tell you to your face. Until he does, don't gin up the logic in your own mind. You're being tempted. Resist it.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-04-27   16:37:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: BobCeleste (#4)

Nope, V13 is correct and you are a goddamned lunatic with a lust to shed blood. And you know not God.

Biff Tannen  posted on  2015-04-27   22:40:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: Biff Tannen (#10)

As usual Biff you make yourself inconsequential. Thanks for constantly reminding us of the Biblical ignorant fool you are.

BobCeleste  posted on  2015-04-28   8:52:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: BobCeleste (#11) (Edited)

We'll see. Either way I'll be saddened.

That I'm not trying to incite mayhem against the Romans is a clue.

Do some looking onto that Judas fellow and guy they caled Barabass (sp)

Biff Tannen  posted on  2015-04-28   18:01:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com