bounty44
Posts: 6374
Joined: 11/1/2014
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1
quote:
ORIGINAL: bounty44
yes, "turn the other cheek" refers to individual behavior when one has been wronged. but governments are not individuals and the new testament supports the idea that governments are recognized as a god-ordained authority.
Really? Since when have any of his reported teachings ever been individualistic??
My memories of the book of laughs is somewhat faded, but from what I remember, all of his teachings were of a moral stance for everyone to follow.
And I don't ever recall anything that states a government is a [separate] god-ordained authority.
quote:
ORIGINAL: bounty44
and one of the purposes of the authority is to protect the citizens of the country. we can debate what that looks like, and to what degree its taken, but we shouldnt confuse what jesus teaches for individuals with the responsibility of the government.
I dispute that posit.
quote:
ORIGINAL: bounty44
also---people are fond of saying that the war in question here was started on the basis of "lies." I remember quite well the majority of people on both sides of the political aisle acting/voting on the intelligence that was given at the time. to call something a lie, or someone a liar, you actually have to show they knew the truth ahead of time, but then purposely decided to deceive.
They didn't have proof positive - they ASSUMED.
And that assumption also proved to be devoid of anything concrete and material.
So, in that sense, not knowing and making an assumption as 'known fact' as a basis to go to war was indeed a lie.
quote:
ORIGINAL: bounty44
to my knowledge, no ones actually done that with any aspect of starting the Iraq war.
Perhaps you need to do some reading. 
I imagine we might be at impasse to start with since you refer to the new testament as the book of laughs, but I’ll nevertheless try to address what you’re saying.
Since always--- Jesus came to “seek and save the lost.” His presence on earth and his messages were to individuals in need of salvation. He did not sit at council with leaders and say “this is how you run a government” nor did he preach to his followers about governing.
He confirms the legitimacy of secular government in saying “render unto Caeser the things of Caesar, and unto God the things of God” and the notion of “God-ordained” when he said to Pilate “you would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above.” New Testament teachings by the apostles reinforce these further, the most exhaustive of which are in Romans 13:1-7 where the most pertinent verse is “everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established.”
Governments are allowed, and indeed have to act in ways that individual people cannot. An example of this is the death penalty. The apostle Paul writes “for he (the ruler) does not bear the sword in vain.” This is in reference to the possibility of someone committing a crime for which the state has the right to take the criminal’s life.
When you say “I dispute that posit,” I can only refer you again to what I’ve written above, with maybe this addition: the gospel is personal, not corporate.
for a bridge between the two sections here, there is such a thing in Christian thought called a "just war." and there certain guidelines for a Christian in government leadership, before declaring/going to war, that he should follow. to my knowledge, no ones ever looked at George bush and Iraq from that perspective.
I don’t know exactly what they had at the time intelligence wise---but I do know that while there were some people who disagreed, both sides of the aisle went forward on the evidence that was available. i think short of our actually sitting there and reviewing for ourselves everything they saw, we’ll never really know.
I don’t remember enough of the language at the time to say if people were disputing what was known concretely, and what was suspected (or assumed if you like) and I don’t remember how it was presented either. But it does make you wonder how many large government decisions are made, if what you are saying is correct, in a similar way. I would maintain however that proceeding on an assumption may show a lack of wisdom, but it’s not a lie---however its presented after the fact.
One thing id ask in general in trying to figure out if someone is lying, is, unless they are pathological liars and cannot not lie, then what is to be gained by lying? If its not really evident, that is, if there is nothing to be gained by the lie, then its quite probable they are telling the truth.
You can say “I need to do some reading” but there’s probably only two ways id be convinced a big whoppin’ lie occurred. One would be to have practically every single thing in front of me and to be privy to the transcripts to all the relevant conversation. The other way would be for the powers that be at the time to look us straight in the face and say “yep, I lied.” Otherwise, theres an awful lot of conjecture going on.
|
RE: Fox News -- Textbook Case of Baseless Right Wing Hy... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread