Just like Stalin, I guess.One, he's the legitimate government, so he has authority from God to rule those lands.
Upvote
0
Just like Stalin, I guess.One, he's the legitimate government, so he has authority from God to rule those lands.
Difficult to say when the transition of legitimacy transferred from the Tsar to the Bolsheviks, but by the time Stalin was in power, they were the undisputed authority and would have to be obeyed, except unto sin.Just like Stalin, I guess.
Here come the Stalin/Hitler analogies......Just like Stalin, I guess.
I'm aware of the relevant passage. I think your idea that "the legitimate government is God ordained" in all cases is problematic. Especially for an American.The relevant passage:
Romans 13:1-7
I'm not sure why it would be problematic. It doesn't mean the government is righteous. St. Paul wrote that in reference to the pagan Romans who invaded and oppressed Israel and would go on to persecute Christians for three centuries. But as long as they aren't ordering you to sin (such as when they ordered the Christians to worship the emperor) then they are to be obeyed as the lawful authority.I'm aware of the relevant passage. I think your idea that "the legitimate government is God ordained" in all cases is problematic. Especially for an American.
Indeed. So, you'll be wanting back in the British Empire.I'm not sure why it would be problematic. It doesn't mean the government is righteous. St. Paul wrote that in reference to the pagan Romans who invaded and oppressed Israel and would go on to persecute Christians for three centuries. But as long as they aren't ordering you to sin (such as when they ordered the Christians to worship the emperor) then they are to be obeyed as the lawful authority.
Huh? I've never been a part of the British Empire. I don't think it exists anymore.Indeed. So, you'll be wanting back in the British Empire.
Oh, cool, we're playing that game.Huh? I've never been a part of the British Empire. I don't think it exists anymore.
You could just say what you meant and I would have agreed. But you didn't, so neither did I.Oh, cool, we're playing that game.
I felt my meaning was clear. As it apparently was, as you obviously understood it.You could just say what you meant and I would have agreed. But you didn't, so neither did I.
It was a sin for the Patriots to rebel against the King. No argument from me.
Without getting into a whole big thing about whether or not "Patriot" is an appropriate term, that sentiment is refreshingly straightforward.It was a sin for the Patriots to rebel against the King.
Doesn't mean I don't sympathize with them or celebrate ID. But I do recognize that they lacked proper authority to do what they did. I certainly hold no ill regard for Loyalists, except ones who just jumped ship for personal gain like Benedict Arnold.I felt my meaning was clear. As it apparently was, as you obviously understood it.
Without getting into a whole big thing about whether or not "Patriot" is an appropriate term, that sentiment is refreshingly straightforward.
He gets unfairly bad press. You wouldn't have a country without him.Doesn't mean I don't sympathize with them or celebrate ID. But I do recognize that they lacked proper authority to do what they did. I certainly hold no ill regard for Loyalists, except ones who just jumped ship for personal gain like Benedict Arnold.
He did good, but got jealous that Washington was getting all the glory. So he swapped sides.He gets unfairly bad press. You wouldn't have a country without him.
If it were safe for them, then I agree. When Evan the Obama Administration says they are suffering genocide, then you know it's bad and something needs done. Short of putting boots on the ground to fix the country (which would probably make it worse in the long run), relocating the victims is the next best thing.It is better that they stay there.
More complicated than that, of course, but let's not start.He did good, but got jealous that Washington was getting all the glory. So he swapped sides.
If you pulled all the Christians out of all of the darkest places in the world, how wil the light of Christ ever reach these dark places? They must be there for the sake of the Gospel. God has preserved them this long, and He will continue to do so.If it were safe for them, then I agree. When Evan the Obama Administration says they are suffering genocide, then you know it's bad and something needs done. Short of putting boots on the ground to fix the country (which would probably make it worse in the long run), relocating the victims is the next best thing.
Source:
http://www.newsweek.com/us-bars-christian-not-muslim-refugees-syria-497494
"The United States has accepted 10,801 Syrian refugees, of whom 56 are Christian. Not 56 percent; 56 total, out of 10,801. That is to say, one-half of 1 percent.
The BBC says that 10 percent of all Syrians are Christian, which would mean 2.2 million Christians. It is quite obvious, and President Barack Obama and Secretary John Kerry have acknowledged it, that Middle Eastern Christians are an especially persecuted group."
It's interesting that Syrian Christians are more likely to be killed, and less likely to be terrorists, yet are heavily discriminated against in terms of refugee intake. Here in Canada, we have the same problem.
Why is the US not taking Syrian Christians? Why are they favouring Muslims?