I was sad when they hanged Saddam

Waitwaitwait. Being against the death penalty is not going out and killing someone.

And civil disobedience is exactly what brought about women having the right to vote and African-Americans gaining civil rights.

"lawful means" are ineffective when the laws are unjust. Peaceful means, however, are imperative. Perhaps the latter is what you meant to say; if the former, it really doesn't make sense as a concept.

 

I am not against a peaceful demonstration or protest such as some anti-abortion ralies are--and the emphasis is on "peaceful."
However civil disobedience is wrong no matter what your history books tell you. The Bible says differently. We go by the Word of God, not American history. The Bible says to submit to the government; submit to those powers and authorities that God has ordained and set in place over you. They are ordained of God.

The reason that the name of Christianity stinks in some nations is because groups such as J.W.'s go and teach their doctrine/agenda to be passive or even not to join the army when it is a requirement for all young men to do at least two years service in the army. I have seen it. They teach never to salute the flag of a nation. What does that say about the nation that they are in. They are teaching the people of that nation to be unpatriotic to their own nation, and in fact rebellion.
These people, mostly in third world nations, only know that they are "Christians" and do not differentiante between them and other Protestants. Everyone is categorized into two groups: Catholics and Protestants. Thus the name of Christ is drawn through the mud by such groups who practice what you call "civil disobedience." That is a prime example.

 

well actually you are supposed to obey the government UNLESS they tell you to do something against the Bible and thats why the apostles said "We will obey God rather than men"


Acts:5:29: Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.


But not saluting the flag is setting a really bad example

 

Your use of "any circumstance" is what brought my question. It would be hard to deny that Israel invading Canaan and killing everyone under the command of God does not fit under "any circumstance."

If you had said "Killing is stupid," and left it at that, I would agree. But you said "in any circumstance." Any reasonable person would interpret "any" as an all inclusive modifier. So the question was to you. If you misspoke, then fine. Just say that

It wasn't unlikely in the least. And I am not trying to win an argument. There is no argument to win here. I am simply questioning what you meant. Again, if you misspoke, that's fine. Just say so. Don't accuse me of ulterior motives.

I was referring to a very human circumstance and questioning if you thought God was stupid. You, so far, have simply dodged.

So when God commanded the Israelites to kill all the Canaanites (men, women, and children) was that stupid? (Yes or No will work fine).

 

So in the examples I gave, Sufferage and the Civil Rights Movement, these people were disobeying God.

Fascinating.

 

So your argument isn't even with a single sentence, but with a single phrase? How finely can you split hairs, anyway?

I cannot, and will not be goaded into, interpreting Old Testament actions and attitudes. Unless you missed it, Jesus rose and we are in New Testamtn times. Unless I specifically state so, when I comment upon modern events, laws and culture, I am commenting upon modern events, laws and culture. Since this was a thread about a modern event, I would expect the comment to be interpreted as one upon modern events, laws and culture, not upon Old Testament theology.

You misread.

How about you don't instruct me as to how I may and may not answer your questions, OK? I'm an adult, and am well able to determine for myself how I may or may not answer nitpickers on an Internet message board.

Do I think God is stupid? Of course not. Do I think that God doing something in the Old Testament means that governments can do things in the here-and-now? Of course not.

I hope that reaches your exacting standards for an answer.

 

I lean toward agreeing with them on this point.

 

Oh, niether would I. But there are Christians who are uncomfortable mixing God and country, and for good reason.

 

As unbelievable as it may sound there are people who actually believe this nonsense, and on the BB no less. Were you around for the Rosa Parks thread? Very interesting and very SAD!

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=4323&highlight=Rosa+Parks

 

Well, being a despicable, unwashen, Liberal nonBaptist, I'm not allowed in them there forums.

Yet what I just read is troubling and, in a pathetic sort of way, just sad. We Christians are all about being nice and quiet and nontroubling as long as it is someone else's rights which are being denied.

It's no wonder people laugh at the church these days, you know? No wonder at all.

 

[quote[So your argument isn't even with a single sentence, but with a single phrase? How finely can you split hairs, anyway?[/quote]I just read what you wrote.

You said “in any circumstances.” Are you claiming that Israel invading Canaan was not a circumstance? How finely can you split hairs.

Now that you say you are commenting on “modern events, laws, and cultures,” you have clarified. Why didn’t you say that to begin with.

So you didn’t say “in any circumstances.” It really says something else? Come on TP. You’re not stupid, and you know I’m not either.

I just didn’t want to be misunderstood as expecting a theological treatise. But you see, even here, you failed. You managed to write several paragraphs when a simple yes or no would have sufficed.

So it appears that you really didn’t mean killing is stupid in any circumstances. You really meant killing is stupid in modern events, laws, and cultures.

Even that raises questions. But at least it clarifies your original remark.

(You don’t have to make this this difficult next time. Don’t take it personal. Just answer the question.)

 

Don't ask questions like, "do you think God is stupid." Anyone (besides, apparently, you) would read that as confrontational and provocative.

 

That's the problem with this form of communication ... Some people (apparently you) are willing to read anything as confrontational and provocative. It wasn't. It was a question about what you meant by "Killing is stupid in any circumstances." And rather than clarify, you decided to niggle about it until now, several pages later, you have finally answered. It seems it should have been a one post answer: "No, I misspoke. "In any circumstances" was too strong. What I meant was ..."

It seems simple to me.

 

"In any circumstance" is not too strong, if we are communicationg as normal human beings communicate, and not in some philosophical netherworld where God is immediately invoked as a crutch or a club. You can show me nowhere in the piece of phrase that you nitpicked at where I said or implied God. Yet you insisted I was calling God stupid, accused me of not answering you when I repeatedly had, and now are whinging about being called on provoking an argument.

Honestly, don't stick it out there if you fear gettin' it cut off.

 

And in an Islamic country such stupidity would close the door to any possible evangelization that was once open for Christians. It doesn't matter what they believe it is. The host nation would put it in the category as something akin to treason.

 

The law says "Fasten your seatbelts; it is the law." There is a $100.00 fine now if you are caught without it being fastened. Why? Because you are breaking the law.
But yet I know some hard-headed stubborn, red-necked preachers that say I'm not letting the government trample on my rights, and then break the law by violating the seat-belt law. They say: "It is against their convictions."
If your convictions are against the law; then change your convictions for they are against God's law.

 

Read the first epistle of Peter. Peter taught these suffering Christians, suffering at the hands of the Roman government to suffer joyfully and yet obediently at the hands of the government. Never once did advocate rebellion against the government. They were to respect the government, to submit to the authorities that were over them; not to reject them, despise them, and in effect teach treason.