Bin Laden is DEAD!

[Martin]

Interesting you have already tossed the book of Romans into the garbage. Don't like it eh!

I don't see anywhere that boudi has 'tossed the book of Romans into the garbage'.  How odd that you should accuse him of doing so and especially after so many other questions have been rightfully raised about your own theology (and left unanswered).  ISTM that you toss all other interpretations other than your own into the garbage and  the one you retain, your own interpretation, actually is garbage.  ISTM that you don't like to ask questions about the Bible but just want to use it to justify your desire to take revenge on others. 

[AndyHB]

Boudi,
Good grief, Christ used violence to deal with the sin and bad behavior of the money changers. The tables were not the issue. So you see that episode as a joke. You see it as a joke because to take is seriously you would have to admit to the justification in Christ going into a righteous rage and lashing out.

Sorry to butt in again, but I just had to respond to this.  PW, it isn't that we find the story about the money changers and Christ's reaction to them funny; certainly from my perspective, what is funny is the way in which you seem to have stretched and moulded the story to fit 1) a context that bears no resemblance to it and 2) support an attitude that Christ clearly denounced across the Gospels.  Not only is it funny, it is also sad since it is - like so much fundamentalist N. American "Christian" belief - so far from Christ's Biblical teaching.

Perhaps some of you might study Romans 13:1-14
There we find that the state or our rulers are justified in using the sword to destroy those that do evil.

Interestingly, PW, Romans 13 is NOT about whether or not states have carte blanche (sorry, you don't like French, do you) to kill or punish wrong-doers.  Its actually to do with our responsibilities - as Christians - to support the authorities that have been set in place by God, by paying taxes, abiding by laws, etc. It is only when those taxes/laws are used to go against God's purposes (and many Quakers, for instance, would argue against paying the 'military' section of any tax bill) that we are entitled to stand against them.  To take 15 or 20 words out of the context in which they sit, and make out that the chapter is about them, rather than the topics that the chapter actually deals with (submission to the authorities, and the fulfilling of the law through love) is to make a mockery of Bible Study, let alone Biblical debate.  This is not to say that you can't use this chapter as part of an argument for your position, but it needs to be within the compass of far more specific teaching on the point to give your claim any weight.

Jan,
I am a God fearing Christian. I belive in the book, the blood and the blessed hope. I've seen that atheist site before. Their contradictions are not contraditions if you read in CONTEXT.

So why are you taking so much out of context in this situation, PW?  Isn't this somewhat hypocritical?

[pow wow]

Romans 13:3-4
For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same; For he is a minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil be afraid; for he beareth NOT the SWORD in vain: for he is the minister of God, a REVENGER to EXECUTE WRATH upon him that doeth EVIL.

So twist that verse or toss it away. But to me it is plain and clear. There is a dfference between how the state is to protect and and how we are to treat our neighbours. It is plain the state is justified in using the sword to fight and destroy those that do evil. Very clear.

[Jan]

Jan,
I am a God fearing Christian. I belive in the book, the blood and the blessed hope. I've seen that atheist site before. Their contradictions are not contraditions if you read in CONTEXT.

Pow wow - some contradictions have been 'explained' - or to be more precise, someone has tried to give their understanding of them (which may or may not make sense). Not all of them have been 'explained' (context or not). I personally put this down to there being different authors of different books (the Bible is after all not the book, it is actually a collection of books - decided at the Council of Nicea). My point being that we have in the Bible different 'views' (on war, violence etc) depending on who wrote the particular book of the Bible you are reading. I choose to go with Christs teaching of love, peace, turning the other cheek etc etc for as far as I can go. To me that is clear. To interpret it any other way is (to me) to go against Christs teachings - regardless of the violence & hostility, cruelty etc displayed   in other parts of the Bible!

But it has been my experience that even when you show how their accusation of contradiction actually isn't, it does nothing. For them to admit no contradiction would turn their world upside down.

 

No - 'they' (if you mean the atheists) are willing to listen - if not then why do they put on the Christian responses to the contradictions they have found?. As a Christian you should be able to deal with the questions and be honest at least if you have been given a question to which you don't have an answer for. Just by giving a standard kind of response such as

Their contradictions are not contraditions if you read in CONTEXT

is not really answering the question is it. Atheists (generally) aren't stupid - they won't generally fall for that you see

As well as contradictions in the bible we have absurdity, intolerance and cruelty. But then we have some wonderful stuff - parables of Jesus (the good Samaritan etc - loving thy neighbour), spiritual gifts (eg in Corinthians), passages about the meaning of love (Corinthians).

So it is pointless to explain or for you to even read the clear instuctions for us to love each other and the states responsibility and justification in using the sword to destroy those that do evil. Or perhaps Osama was not evil in your eyes. Perhaps you do not believe there is such a thing as evil and those that use it and are controled by it.

Oh evil exists - we are all capable of doing evil deeds. You do not destroy evil by doing more evil. It has already been explained what happens when you do. You already know what Jesus said

With that, one of Jesus' companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear. "Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword

[Boudi]

Boudi your mention of Peter and his sword is way off. Christ no doubt had fear that night but He was going to sacrifice his life for us anyway. Why? Because of His love for you and me. The real love not that strange love you promote. Christ could have called on the angels to rescue Him but He did not. This has no link to the role of the state to use the sword to destroy those that would do evil to it's people. I again go to Romans for how Christians should understand that the state is justified in the eyes of God when it uses the sword. Please show me how I don't understand the very clear instruction these verses provide us with?
Interesting you have already tossed the book of Romans into the garbage. Don't like it eh!

I refer you to Martin's words with regrd to the state, and again point olut that you're clinging to your Roman's now, whereas you were using furniture aggression earlier as a justification.  Jesus and his tippling tables let you down?

Do I like or dioslike the book of Romans? Don't care either way, but America once insisted that people got theirm day in court, just as Jesus got his.  I don't need to scrat arounjd for the odd line here and there to try to make the killing of an unarmed man a Christian act.  I suspect you need to look at the life of Christ to define that.  ( you've moved and tried to find refuge in Paul!)

[Boudi]

Jan,
  For them to admit no contradiction would turn their world upside down.

Now that's rich!

[Boudi]

Romans 13:3-4
For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same; For he is a minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil be afraid; for he beareth NOT the SWORD in vain: for he is the minister of God, a REVENGER to EXECUTE WRATH upon him that doeth EVIL.

So twist that verse or toss it away. But to me it is plain and clear. There is a dfference between how the state is to protect and and how we are to treat our neighbours. It is plain the state is justified in using the sword to fight and destroy those that do evil. Very clear.

So, as I believe has already been put tomyou, why didn't the authority, set by God, supposedly, which is Pakistan, not be brought in to carry out this act?

[Jan]

Just to add a couple of links with further reasoning on our discussion here

Did Jesus instruct his followers to buy a sword?

If Jesus was telling them to have a sword handy (for self-defense) as they went into the world preaching the gospel, why then do Acts and the epistles consistently show the disciples accepting persecution peacefully? (Darrel Bock's commentary gives the following examples: Acts 4:25-31, 8:1-3, 9:1-2, 12:1-5).

read the rest in the link above.

The misuse of Romans 13:1-7, NIV 

Romans 13 has often been used to justify Christian support for war. The argument runs like this: as Christians, we are commanded in Romans 13 to obey our government. So if our government declares or supports a war, we are bound to support our government too.

There are at least three fallacies in that argument.

(see above link for the rest)

[pow wow]

So one is to close there eyes or ignore the fact that the state is justified according to the New Testament in using the sword to destroy those that are doing evil. No, that's a view of one who can't distiguish between the states responibilty and Christ's instuctions to us for our day to day lives. You prefer Christ's message of love. I prefer that as well but I will not do so while ignoring the fact that we have to live in the REAL world that unfortunately has evil and evil people. The Bible instructs us on this reality in the book of Romans and CLEARLY instucts the Christian on the states use of the sword. God didn't wish for sin to enter the world but through our actions it has. God does not ignore the reality and it is dealt with plainly for us all to understand. If the state gets a pass on protecting us and destroying those that do evil, who has that task? No, God requires the state to do the job on our behalf, no dancing around that, it's to plainly spelled out in Romans.

Boudi, Pakistan indeed had the responsability to take out Osama but it has chosen to hide and protect him. Not all their leaders. But if you knew anything about the reality over there you would understand that some miltary brass are hard core Taliban supporters. Osama's network and the Taliban are brothers in evil. Osama will never be able to plan yours nor my demise ever again. Our leaders did their job on our behalf and not in contradition to the New Testament.

Jan you tossed me an atheist site I've seen before. They put up a long list of supposed contradictions. Please pick one and let's have a go.

[Jan]

So one is to close there eyes or ignore the fact that the state is justified according to the New Testament in using the sword to destroy those that are doing evil. No, that's a view of one who can't distiguish between the states responibilty and Christ's instuctions to us for our day to day lives. You prefer Christ's message of love. I prefer that as well but I will not do so while ignoring the fact that we have to live in the REAL world that unfortunately has evil and evil people. The Bible instructs us on this reality in the book of Romans and CLEARLY instucts the Christian on the states use of the sword. God didn't wish for sin to enter the world but through our actions it has. God does not ignore the reality and it is dealt with plainly for us all to understand. If the state gets a pass on protecting us and destroying those that do evil, who has that task? No, God requires the state to do the job on our behalf, no dancing around that, it's to plainly spelled out in Romans.

Really you know - you might find those links I added in the post above quite helpful in clearing up the 'mix up' that seems to be apparent here in your post.

Jan you tossed me an atheist site I've seen before. They put up a long list of supposed contradictions. Please pick one and let's have a go.

I added a link to an atheist site. You might have seen it before but you were obviously not aware that there can be responses from Christian sites on there as well - so I doubt that you have actually looked at it properly. You should you know - it is quite interesting  As for picking just one - try to do them all, one at a time of course,  there are quite a lot of them (some have already been responded to by Christians as you will see when you take a proper look)  ... though I would hope that you can give a better reply than the 'oh you have to read it in context' response.

[Martin]

Romans 13:3-4
For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same; For he is a minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil be afraid; for he beareth NOT the SWORD in vain: for he is the minister of God, a REVENGER to EXECUTE WRATH upon him that doeth EVIL.

So twist that verse or toss it away. But to me it is plain and clear. There is a dfference between how the state is to protect and and how we are to treat our neighbours. It is plain the state is justified in using the sword to fight and destroy those that do evil. Very clear.

You made this point before, but you neglected to answer the points I made against your interpretation.  If this is to apply to governments, that they are to be considered God's instruments, and their armed forces are considered revengers who execute wrath... if this is Paul's message, that despite Jesus' teaching about turning the other cheek or loving your enemies and doing good to those who hate you, we are to applaud the authorities when they implement their laws - or even when they operate outside their own laws, then why should we not also respect the Taliban and their executions of women in football stadiums as God's servants? 

[Boudi]

So one is to close there eyes or ignore the fact that the state is justified according to the New Testament in using the sword to destroy those that are doing evil. No, that's a view of one who can't distiguish between the states responibilty and Christ's instuctions to us for our day to day lives. You prefer Christ's message of love. I prefer that as well but I will not do so while ignoring the fact that we have to live in the REAL world that unfortunately has evil and evil people. The Bible instructs us on this reality in the book of Romans and CLEARLY instucts the Christian on the states use of the sword. God didn't wish for sin to enter the world but through our actions it has. God does not ignore the reality and it is dealt with plainly for us all to understand. If the state gets a pass on protecting us and destroying those that do evil, who has that task? No, God requires the state to do the job on our behalf, no dancing around that, it's to plainly spelled out in Romans.

Boudi, Pakistan indeed had the responsability to take out Osama but it has chosen to hide and protect him. Not all their leaders. But if you knew anything about the reality over there you would understand that some miltary brass are hard core Taliban supporters. Osama's network and the Taliban are brothers in evil. Osama will never be able to plan yours nor my demise ever again. Our leaders did their job on our behalf and not in contradition to the New Testament.

Jan you tossed me an atheist site I've seen before. They put up a long list of supposed contradictions. Please pick one and let's have a go.

Again you seem to be clutching onto this new found small bit of scripture and are builfding your whole opinion on it, in spite of the fact that yopu never seemed to know about it a few days ago, using tables as justification! You now rely on the state, but Jesus spoke about us changing as individuals, he was dismissive of the idea of state, as he showed in his render unto Caesar.  Jesus was more bothered with our personal commitment to God.

Could youplease provide me with the evidence you have that shows Pakistan had knowledge, when of course you provide uis with the evidence for all the weapons you claim Bin Laden had to hand.....

You're right that Bin Laden can't plan another attack....doyou really think it's over?

Can you also explain why one American 'authority' insisted on putting the Nazis on trial, and that was right, yet another authority assasinates, without trial, and that's right???

[Boudi]

   If this is to apply to governments, that they are to be considered God's instruments, and their armed forces are considered revengers who execute wrath... if this is Paul's message, that despite Jesus' teaching about turning the other cheek or loving your enemies and doing good to those who hate you, we are to applaud the authorities when they implement their laws - or even when they operate outside their own laws, then why should we not also respect the Taliban and their executions of women in football stadiums as God's servants?

Excwellent points, and of course, we can be selective as to who we see as the Authority.  Paskistan seems to be the appropriate authority here, yet PW sees a foreign power as the authority because it fits.  Pakistan may not have been right in their actions, but have they been proved to have broken any laws?  I suspect not.  Flying your military over their borders and killing people without trial, that seems more likely  to be breaking laws.

It seems we can throw Jesus out if the message of Paul suits out purposes ( even when it doesn't really).

[pow wow]

Boudi,
One not living in reality and using common sense would make the claim that no one with authority knew and enabled Osama to hide next door to a military compound, living in luxury and planning more attacks. Not believable in the slightest. Osama took credit for the attack on 9/11. He took credit right after the event and he put out a video for us to see. One would be a fool and Osama was no fool, to be the most wanted criminal and sleep with no weapon around. Not believable. I do believe that if Osama had put up his hands in surrender, he would be alive today. Something was going on in that room that justified the navy seals using deadly force. I applaud them. Violating Pakistans air space. Boudi, they failed their people and us. They have been playing both sides of the coin. If you knew anything about that area you would know that is normal practise. They let us down. They are very embarassed right now and are really going to have some problems in future from both sides of that game they have been playing. The terrorists and us. Obama has demanded answers from Pakistan on how they did or how they didn'y know. Obama's no fool, he realizes they knew and now they've got some explaining to do.
New bit of scripture. Oh, I guess Tangneffedd didn't mention that my dad was a minister. A Bible college teacher as well as a buisness man and farmer in his later years. I'm no stranger to Romans. It was my choice to take my high schooling in an evangelical Christian school. No, I'm no stranger it's not new to me at all.

Jan, forget your atheist web site, I have, just pick a contradiction and you and I can debate if the scripture is a contradiction or not. I will not use a site to make my arguments but I will use my King James and a couple Bible commentaries.

[Boudi]

they play bopth sides of the coin....so do you.  You look for scripture to justify whatever position yiou choose to take.  Christ teaches against war, and for peace.  He has a problem with fighters, but you can ignore that, you have a line in Romans.

Yes new bit of scripture.  i don't care if your dad's the pope, you have changed tack b y bringing in a bew verse, whereas up to very recently table kicking was all you gave us, and table kicking seems to justify anyone doing anything to anyone.  Beat your wife because Jesus hates tables.

Perhaps you should read that thar King James Bible.  You'll like it.