Featured Militarily speaking

Not the problem, Hank.

People pay taxes and dues as regulations oblige.

However, does the Congress pledge to the alien country?

When do believers, whose citizenship resides with the Father who adopted them, determine that the Father’s citizenship rights do not allow for pledging and serving any earth country, or release us from such.

20For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ;21who will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory, by the exertion of the power that He has even to subject all things to Himself.
​

 

Are you not a citizen of Heaven?

Currently, the US has no restriction on dual citizenship based on parentage.

Just to add a bit of humor:

This is a problem for all except Calvinistic thinkers.

The non-cal views generally have the person choosing rather than parent choice.

The Cals hold that the Heavenly Father made the purposed choice long before the conceCption. ​

Paul, held dual citizenship, but the citizenship of which he clung cost him his life.

Hence the basis for the questions on “when” rather than on the “what” or “why.”

 

Actually, paying taxes has little to do with approval, and everything to do with the law.

Being an American, you have every right.

However, the questions involve more than what and why something is done.

Rather, “when.”

1) When do believers determine that armed conflict in support of the country (any country) is worthy and righteous?

2) When do believers determine that imprisonment and death are preferred in comparison to service and submission to the country (any country)?

3) Specific to the U.S., when do the BB members determine that the country is not one in which to honor with pledge and service?

 

Comprehension problems usually occur in the very young and very old.

Would you not agree?

But, more to the point:

Believers (as did the Apostle Paul) in the US enjoy dual citizenship.

As already noted, eventually Paul was forced to chose one citizenship over another. Doing so had certain repercussions. “For me to live is Christ, to die is gain.”

The first two questions of the “when” address that concerned problem of believers of ANY country.

The third question was specific (by extrapolation from the first two answers) to the US.

 

Sorry you consider yourself so disparaged.

• There are some who demand answers, but, when answer(s) is given, do not show the error of the answer or even why it is inappropriate. Rather, they merely continue to demand an answer.

• There are those who take from the original question and manipulate it into one that was never intended to be ask, and then think they have answered the original question. More often the person didn’t have an answer, so had to manipulate the question into a form that person could answer.

• There are those who actually comprehend the question and provide well considered answers and arguments. They are able to compare and contrast their response to others given and actually discussion is involved.

If you look back at the thread posts, you will have to agree that this agedman has:

1) attempted to keep the focus on the purpose of the thread by reposting the questions
2) attempted to keep the focus by using bold print and “quotation marks” to highlight the key word of the questions.
3) attempted to use bits of humor to conjole responses into focusing on the questions.
4) attempted by quoting responses and comparing/contrasting original questions to further focus on the issue(s) and encourage greater thoughtfulness.
5) attempted to bring serious discussions to this obviously divisive issue, so that responses move away from being merely reactionary.​

Van, are you are actually one of those that you warn the B.B. about by posting, “Beware of those who change the subject, tell you what they do not believe, or disparage others?”

 

Is there actually something to win?

What is “won” if one’s response is that heard on the elementary playground?

What is “won” if thoughts and opinions are not considered and probed for strengths and weakness?

What is “won” if the first rule to answering a question is ignored?

What is “won” by asking questions based on half the truth?

In this thread, three “when” questions were ask.

Looking back over your own responses, which ones are winners?

There may be some.

Excellent if there are.

Wish there were more?

 

Not being obtuse, but who is the “y’all” that you seem angered at?

 

I’m not certain why or even when this thread turned into “love America or leave it” chest thumping.

I don’t hold any one person at fault, but do sense the need to respond.

Because service and duty is called into question if no more than by implication, it will remain enough that the readers know that family blood is on the hills of Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, the shores and hedgerows of Europe, the rice patties and jungles of Asia, as well as the wilds of the West. It is enough that family names are etched into Wall and markers. Duty and service has never been shirked nor been embarrassed by irresponsibility. Enough to know that not all who serve are privileged to share. Enough to know “armchair moralist” may just come with the authority of both price paid and duty met. Enough!

This thread was meant to go beyond waving the flag, and displaying medals. Nothing at all wrong with doing either and both.



The purpose of this thread was to explore when believers such as Paul, Polycarp, Perpetua of the earliest church, Huss and Tyndale of the middle years, and on to our modern times determine the citizenship of eternity of more value then any of earthly frame.

The “when” was predetermined by the five missionaries in the 50’s as they landed on that sandy beach in South America. They had already agreed before the journey.

The “when” should be predetermined in every believer’s heart, mind, and from the core of their living.