Dumocracy rules!

[Granite]

Originally posted by Zakath

But he claims to be a True Believer™ and also claims that people who refuse do act are sinners and disobedient to your deity.

How come, after 2000 years, you people don't have a uniform solution to a relatively simple problem?

We have the same problem as humanists: personalities (I don't think humanists or atheists, put into a room, could agree across the board on too much). I think egos and agendas have pretty much dominated the Christian church for centuries--for better (Reformation) and worse (Enlightenment).

I think one of the misconceptions some have is that Christians are expected to behave, speak, and think like some kind of Borg collective--identical rhetoric, identical solutions. Quite honestly, I'm glad there is little uniformity within the church of today; I think if capable, Christianity would probably do more harm than good with the leaders (so called) and followers in most pews.

 

[Granite]

"There is only one course of action that is still not been tried and it might be the only course of action left to us."

Absolutely not true. Three decades of fighting Roe v. Wade, for instance, is a drop in the bucket of history. Impatience and revolutionary thinking has persuaded you that rebellion is your only alternative.

"That is the defiances of the civil authority. This course of action may result in prison and persecution of all Christians."

Indeed, and it will accomplish nothing (except massive damage to the church as a whole). The church's pattern, historically, has never been revolution. Revolutions are for humanists and the enemies of God.

"Are we,as was our forefathers willing to sacrifice our lands and families in a civil action against the government to secure the right of life for the unborn."

What did the church do in Rome?

"We must be willing to occupy the white house if necessary."

Are you talking about a coup?

"Should this fail then the execution of the criminal murderers of unborn Babies may be necessary."

Murder, no matter how you sugar coat it, is not the Christian model. E4e, whether you know it or not, you're part of the problem.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by granite1010
We have the same problem as humanists: personalities (I don't think humanists or atheists, put into a room, could agree across the board on too much).

We atheists only have to agree on a single thing - that we do not believe in deity. It's a lot simpler than the problems you religionists face.

I think egos and agendas have pretty much dominated the Christian church for centuries--for better (Reformation) and worse (Enlightenment).

You'll hear no argument from me.

I think one of the misconceptions some have is that Christians are expected to behave, speak, and think like some kind of Borg collective--identical rhetoric, identical solutions. Quite honestly, I'm glad there is little uniformity within the church of today; I think if capable, Christianity would probably do more harm than good with the leaders (so called) and followers in most pews.

The expectation is based on some fundamentalists' assertions that one must believe "X" and "Y" to be a Real Christian™. The problem we outsiders have is that, after almost 2000 years the Christians seem generally unable to say with any precision what "X" and "Y" actually are... :help:

 

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by elected4ever
There is only one course of action that is still not been tried and it might be the only course of action left to us. That is the defiances of the civil authority.

Not true. Boycotting companies has proven to be effective in getting them to stop selling pornography and also to stop advertising during certain shows.

Therefore, why not try boycotting the elections? Tell the Republican National Committee that we Christians are going to stay home during the next election unless the official platform contains a decree that there will be a litmus test for selecting Supreme Court Justices (just like the Democrats do). The litmus test is that if a prospective Justice does not come out strongly in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade, then that person will not even be considered. If the RNC does not agree to this, then we stay home.

It will guarantee that they will lose the election. They will stop giving us lip service and as you correctly say, "throwing us a bone" every now and then just to get our vote and shut us up.

 

[elected4ever]

granite1010, thank you for your response. You seem to be advising patiences and perseverance. I cannot say that I disagree with that but nether can I justify the killing of babies, the theft of the wealth of the citizens, the unlawful taxation of the incomes of individuals and the unlawful advocation of the monetary policy from the constitutional agencies to a private bank. All done with the blessing of the churches. We have a rogue government with a constituency that thrives on these unlawful acts. The Churches are not the bastions of truth that they propose to be because they never opposed one of these unlawful acts of government but instead gave there blessing.

Now when it comes to murder mills the church is still lukewarm preferring to roll with the flow. Becoming a Christian requires more than turning the other cheek. Christians are not your mommy's whipping boys, yet we are told by those appointed over us to knuckle under and not stand for what is right. Just stand for what the church stands for regardless of its truth or error. You may be right not to do as I advocate because the churches gave up there credibility a long time ago and I doubt the church has the stomach for it.

You ask me if I were talking about a coup. No, I am talking about a return to lawful government. The coup happened a log time ago when we allowed it to be stolen from us without so much as a whimper. When the churches called good evil and the evil good.

 

[Gerald]

Originally posted by elected4ever
The coup happened a log time ago when we allowed it to be stolen from us without so much as a whimper.

It's nice to see somebody with the fortitude to admit that, like the Muslims, the Christians had a chance to be Large and In Charge™...

...and they dropped the ball...
:chuckle:

 

[elected4ever]

The Church advocated its responsibility on at least 4 occasion sense 1900. The church has the government it ask for.

 

[elected4ever]

Now it is trying to surk its responsibility to the unborn.

 

[Granite]

E4E: We're not somehow justifying abortion by not murdering abortionists or firebombing their houses.

Besides, if what you say is true, and the church has been co-opted, by and large, what good would it do trying to start an armed revolt?

 

[elected4ever]

granite1010

E4E: We're not somehow justifying abortion by not murdering abortionists or firebombing their houses.

e4e -------- I have not advocated the murder of anyone and to firebomb nothing. The occupation of their promises and the courthouses in the land is an act of civil disobedience. Besides the execution of murderers do not make a person a murderer. The idea is to get the government to establish justice. If they would do that there would be no need for the rest.

 

[Gerald]

Originally posted by elected4ever

The Church advocated its responsibility on at least 4 occasion sense 1900. The church has the government it ask for.

[pedant]

Pssst! I think you mean "abdicated"...

[/pedant]

 

[elected4ever]

Gerald

Pssst! I think you mean "abdicated"...

e4e ---Thanks Gerald. My bad.

 

[Granite]

Originally posted by elected4ever

granite1010

e4e -------- I have not advocated the murder of anyone and to firebomb nothing. The occupation of their promises and the courthouses in the land is an act of civil disobedience. Besides the execution of murderers do not make a person a murderer. The idea is to get the government to establish justice. If they would do that there would be no need for the rest.

Paul Hill was a murderer. To say otherwise is to justify homicide. "Executing" an abortionist might satisfy a psychopath's blood lust, but it is not a legitimate "execution" and is simply a murder. Elected, your problem is that you fail to understand arbitrarily taking the law into your own hands as an unbiblical offense. Just because you happen to call yourself a Christian doesn't mean anything goes.

Tell me, was Paul Hill a murderer or a martyr?

And if the government fails to conform to your own personal definition of "justice," is anything we do to the government--including violence--completely justified?

 

[elected4ever]

Who is Paul Hill? Was he the guy from the pan-handle of Florida?

 

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by elected4ever

Who is Paul Hill? Was he the guy from the pan-handle of Florida?

http://www.armyofgod.com/Paulhillindex.html

 

[elected4ever]

Rest assured that if a Christian establishes justice for the unborn by executing the murderous abortionist, the present day church will call for your life because the church is not interested in establishing justice. The present day church supports abortion by supporting those who are responsible for making murder legal in the first place.

 

[Yorzhik]

Originally posted by Gerald

Here's one for you.

Let's say you're a high-ranking agent of the Crown and you receive a letter from the king, detailing a proclamation he'll be handing down soon, one that declares members of certain organizations "traitors who are fomenting rebellion" and calls for their arrest.

The letter goes on to say that the proclamation will not be handed down immediately, as to do so would afford the rebels an opportunity to escape, and attached is a list of names and addresses of people in your jurisdiction who are to be picked up and detained.

You have your orders, signed and sealed by the king. Do you carry them out?

(And don't dodge the question by saying "a just ruler wouldn't do such a thing", as we are not discussing a just ruler...)

No doubt, a monarch would try such a thing (most of them would be evil). But, yeah, I'd have to rebel against such an order if the names on the list were innocent people.

 

[Granite]

Originally posted by elected4ever

Rest assured that if a Christian establishes justice for the unborn by executing the murderous abortionist, the present day church will call for your life because the church is not interested in establishing justice. The present day church supports abortion by supporting those who are responsible for making murder legal in the first place.

Paul Hill did not dispense justice; he became a law unto himself and murdered two people. There is no way to justify what he did. Hill was rightly condemned by the church at large for what he did.

 

[Gerald]

Originally posted by Yorzhik
No doubt, a monarch would try such a thing (most of them would be evil). But, yeah, I'd have to rebel against such an order if the names on the list were innocent people.

Small problem: the way I framed the question, you are not in a position to make the call regarding guilt or innocence; those further up the chain may have information that you don't have. And since this regime is run from the top down, those higher up are not obliged to justify their decisions to those below.

So, I ask again: based on the information you have, and your position in the hierarchy, do you obey your orders?

 

[elected4ever]

granite1010

Paul Hill did not dispense justice; he became a law unto himself and murdered two people. There is no way to justify what he did. Hill was rightly condemned by the church at large for what he did.

e4e ------- Yes, He did dispense justice. No, he did not become a law unto himself. He executed the law of the King. The King is sovereign in His right to declare law and that law is superior to the laws of human government. Where the laws of human government and the laws of the kingdom differ, the laws of the Kingdom prevail. It is the failure of the church and the human government not to recognize this and not align the human laws with those of the king.

The church is to be the representative of the King in the world. The church is to be the salt that preserves the nations and speak for the King in the affairs of nations. When the salt looses its preserving power it is thrown out. The church has lose its power to influence the affairs of the government and has been co opted by government to give the government the appearance of legitimacy.

The church has been bought off by the state in the form of tax brakes and in return for tax brakes the church has agreed not to participate in the political discussion of the government. The church has sold its birthright. If the opposition to unjust law can be fragmented there will be no unifying voice that can speak clearly and act decisively. Individuals and small groups are easily over come and silenced.