May 12, 200818 yr Well there is that one story about Goliath... Yes but he was a lowly private then. Once king, he didn't seek out that confrontation out too many more times. :thumb:
May 12, 200818 yr Got a scripture to back this statement? Debate may be the catch word, but I have always believed in the idea of "Priesthood of the Believer" which allows each of us to study scriptures and prayerfully consider how God is speaking to us individually. Although others have similar priniples that is one of the old great distinctives that used to mark Baptists.
May 13, 200818 yr Hatz, if I explain myself every time I write something I'll never finish my work, so like you said IMHO, works for me. Yes, I believe we are to protect our family and if I had to save a stranger from trouble ..and I have, we should do it. I was referring to David's battle but realized later the thread was New Testament and shouldn't have included it along with Sampson. Peter, Paul & Stephen faced hardships and chose to use words instead of spears. IMHO
May 13, 200818 yr Yes but he was a lowly private then. Once king, he didn't seek out that confrontation out too many more times. :thumb: He wasn't even a private as I recall, just a shepherd who wasn't supposed to be there at all. He didn't have to seek confrontation any more... he'd already whipped the biggest, baddest boy in town.
May 13, 200818 yr Although others have similar priniples that is one of the old great distinctives that used to mark Baptists. :thumb: Christian first and formost, but as far as denominations go, Baptist comes closest to my beliefs.
May 13, 200818 yr I think this is an example of our generation growing up with a Fred Rogers, incomplete vision of who Jesus Christ was and what he did. Jesus was the one who took cords and brandished them as whips to run people (money-changers) out of his father's house. When Jesus deemed it time to be physical, Jesus was physical about whipping people's rears. He was more about love than physical action but in this incident, Jesus felt the need to physically whip someone.
May 14, 200818 yr I think this is an example of our generation growing up with a Fred Rogers, incomplete vision of who Jesus Christ was and what he did. Jesus was the one who took cords and brandished them as whips to run people (money-changers) out of his father's house. When Jesus deemed it time to be physical, Jesus was physical about whipping people's rears. He was more about love than physical action but in this incident, Jesus felt the need to physically whip someone. There is a difference between "whipping someone" and using "deadly force."
May 17, 200818 yr Jesus told Peter to put his sword up not throw it away. He also had allowed Peter to carry his sword with him as he had it on his person. God was not against killing in all instances. He even sent his people in to posses the land knowing it would result in blood shed. He sent King Saul on a quest to destroy every man, woman, child, and animal in one kingdom. Saul fell out of God's favor for not killing all the rams and bringing back the King. So thou shall not kill must not be taken with such a narrow interpretation to be applied to all things in all situations. God is the same yesterday, today and forever more. He changes not. Some may want to ignore the old testament but it is a schoolmaster that lets us understand the nature of God. Jesus never destroyed the law he fulfilled it. He also never changed the nature of God. Paul refered to the old scriptures in his writing and said that with out the law he would not have known sin.
May 17, 200818 yr The main reason of the 2nd amendment was so that the government could not disarm the masses and for people to be able to defend themselves against the English. A disarmed people is subjects to a tyrannical government.
May 17, 200818 yr Jesus told Peter to put his sword up not throw it away. He also had allowed Peter to carry his sword with him as he had it on his person. God was not against killing in all instances. He even sent his people in to posses the land knowing it would result in blood shed. He sent King Saul on a quest to destroy every man, woman, child, and animal in one kingdom. Saul fell out of God's favor for not killing all the rams and bringing back the King. So thou shall not kill must not be taken with such a narrow interpretation to be applied to all things in all situations. God is the same yesterday, today and forever more. He changes not. Some may want to ignore the old testament but it is a schoolmaster that lets us understand the nature of God. Jesus never destroyed the law he fulfilled it. He also never changed the nature of God. Paul refered to the old scriptures in his writing and said that with out the law he would not have known sin. You are stretching with the "put down, throw away" argument. What do you do with his actual statement: "Those who take up the sword will perish by the sword."? Sounds like an indictment to me. As to your discussions on the OT passages and then conclusion that such practices are still in effect, I'll play with that one. If the law is still the law; and we have to practice it as such - what about the Levitical "Year of Jubilee." ? This was the year that all debts were forgiven and all lands returned to the original families from the conquest. Israel didn't practice it much but it is the law. If we are going to follow the law, don't you think the same should be in effect now for us? It is God's Law. :thumb:
May 17, 200818 yr The main reason of the 2nd amendment was so that the government could not disarm the masses and for people to be able to defend themselves against the English. A disarmed people is subjects to a tyrannical government. I totally agree. :thumb:
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.