Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by Aaron, Feb 12, 2010.
Is a monarchy antithetical to Scriptural principles? Why or why not?
God recommended against monarchy but permitted the appointment of Saul as the first monarch of Israel. The NT is 100% a-political. No NT writer had the guts to oppose Rome.
The Jews had a special deal from Rome by the time that Jesus was preaching because Rome considered the Jews as not worth the trouble trying to enforce standard Roman rule. A few years after Jesus' execution the Jews rebelled and for 3 years actually coined their own money. This was one of the things that precipitated the destruction in 70 AD.
Christianity was considered a Jewish sect and the Christians liked this just fine because the Romans left them alone.
Was this before or after being eaten by lions in the coliseum?
" In AD 64, part of Rome was burned down. The Emperor Nero blamed the Christians and the people turned on them. Arrests and executions followed."
Solomon had 300 hundred wives and 700 concubines. Can't be all bad, least he did not commit adultery?
How do we reconcile that truth with God anyway?
I've bolded the only truth in that pile of horse puckeys.
"It's GOOD to be da king!"
God did not endorse this; look at how it brought Solomon down - he ended up turning to the worship of false gods via his wives.
All polygamists had problems in the Bible because this is not what God means by marriage. They were following cultural customs and got into trouble this way.
I don't think any government is harmonious with Scripture because all forms of government/rulership in this world now are man-based and part of the fallen world.
So you've got two options here billwald. Either you don't believe that the Bible is God's Word or you think that God didn't have the guts to oppose Rome. Which is it?
It's really no wonder that you aren't a Baptist any longer. With all the views that you hold, you've probably been banned from every Baptist church in your area.
I see his nonsense as the result of two unfortunate factors.
1. In his profile you may note that his interest is "arguing"
2. He posts in a style that can best be described as "stream of consciousness"
Here is the truth. Deuteronomy 17:14-17 - "When you enter the land the LORD your God is giving you and have taken possession of it and settled in it, and you say, "Let us set a king over us like all the nations around us," be sure to appoint over you the king the LORD your God chooses. He must be from among your own brothers. Do not place a foreigner over you, one who is not a brother Israelite. The king, moreover, must not acquire great numbers of horses for himself or make the people return to Egypt to get more of them, for the LORD has told you, 'You are not to go back that way again.' He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold."
His marriages, which included marriages to a great many foreign women did indeed turn his heart away. Away from Almighty God. Solomon became an idolater.
1 Kings 11:4-6 - "As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the LORD his God, as the heart of David his father had been. He followed Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and Molech the detestable god of the Ammonites. So Solomon did evil in the eyes of the LORD; he did not follow the LORD completely, as David his father had done."
I would submit that King Solomon did commit adultery. I submit that he committed spiritual adultery.
Read Ecclesiastes. :flower:
King Solomon would differ with you.
I would be ashamed to be part of a congregation that takes it upon themselves to ban people from the house of the Lord.
Look...billwald thinks Jesus was sinful; why wouldn't he think the word of God is a sham? It would be consistent with his theology.
I would be ashamed to be a part of a congregation that doesn't follow the Biblical model of discipline. I know to you liberals that the Bible can be harsh and you don't like parts of it. Why don't you just cut out all the parts of the Bible you don't like and come up with the "Bleeding Heart Liberals Bible". once you are done cutting it up, the only message in it would be "Love everyone no matter what and there are no consequences for any actions".
First of all, I suppose you have no lucid argument since you resort to ad hominem attempts like "you liberals". And "you bibliolators" don't follow the Bible. You cut and paste as much as anyone. Otherwise, who don't you stone an unruly son to death? Why don't you stone adulterers to death? It's because you cut and paste and make excuses about "Jesus changed that". Yeah, right.
It isn't a liberal / conservative thing at all. It is not up to me to discipline anyone except my own children. And even there, discipline is not punishment, but discipling.
You keep thinking all that. You might want to read the new testament a little bit. It has several examples of church discipline in it. I agree, it's not up to you personally to discipline anyone but your own children, but the church as a corporate body has a responsibility to uphold.
Cut and paste? No...I type out the word liberal every single time I use it.
I was speaking of the Bible, not your posts. And the word "liberal" is in the KJV. The word "conservative" is not.
Seems to me the Bible is pretty quiet about forms of government. True in the early OT God wanted Israel to have a theocracy and they did for a while ... but it did not seem to work very well. Men become corrupted and yearn for power and riches within a theocracy just as in other forms of government.
Jesus said very little about government other than to render unto Caesar that which is Casear's and unto God that which is God's. To my memory he never said anything about a monarchy being either good nor bad. Christ is totally silent on democracy. I do not see how either form of government can be condemned nor approved of through scripture.
All forms of government have their good points and bad ... though I must say it is hard to find the good in some governments who misuse whatever form they are using; i.e. Burma, Zimbabwe for example ... but even in these two countries some people probably like them as they are benefitting at the expense of others.