Judging others...

[dr.p]

As an example of what God would probably like in any given situation: Shadrach, Meshach, and AbedNego were faithful Jewish followers of the God of Israel living under the rule of Nebuchadnezzar in the time of Daniel the prophet, in Babylon. Nebuchadnezzar had an idol made, decreed all must worship it, had a ceremony, and those 3 would not worship it. They would not obey the law, in preference to God's commandment "don't worship false idols, or anything other than Me." (paraphrased, Exodus 20)

So, because they would not obey Neby, they were thrown into a fiery furnace (Daniel c3 v21) , which was actually so hot that it destroyed some of the men that threw those 3 in (v22). But, an angel of the Lord appeared in the fire and the men came out unharmed (v24-26).

Considering their faithfulness and how God protected them because of it, is there really any argument as to whether you should obey the government over God at any time?

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. came preaching that a peaceful solution to segregation was the answer, constrasting the more violent approaches of some other groups. Dr. King submitted to the law as appropriate, violent radicals did not. But Dr. King was by no means submitting to or condoning the laws that supported racial segregation. He saw so many injustices being perpetrated by Americans, many of whom probably called themselves Christians.

Are you, freealaska, suggesting that Dr. King was wrong to have called out the hate-mongers in the government, and society in general, on their injust policies and practices?

See what's right, and do it. Remember, Jesus said "be not afraid of those who can kill the body, but of Him who has power to destroy both body and soul in hellfire." (paraphrased, Matthew 10:28) Fear God, and bear the consequences as He allows if you do disobey the government for His sake; He'll never forget anyone that does that for Him.

 

[freealaska]

Well just when I was about to rule assisted suicide constitutional and pull the plug on this thread along comes someone who breaths new life into it.



Since I have you all right where I want you, its time to play the:

Do you obey this command:

Leviticus 20:27
" 'A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be put to death. You are to stone them; their blood will be on their own heads.' "

According to your own assertions it is more important to obey God's commands than the commands of the Governing Authorities. In this case the government has forbidden the execution of mediums and spiritists (First Amendment Protections), and in many cases if you stoned them to death AS GOD COMMANDS, you yourself would be executed. Yet I can't remember the last time we had a good stoning. Shouldn't we disobey the Government and execute them anyway since its what God wants?

P.S. the first person who says 'no' and gives some weasily excuse why Leviticus 20:27 no longer applies will be sternly rebuked and reminded that because Leviticus 20:13 OBVIOUSLY still applies Leviticus 20:27 still applies because they are in the same chapter.

 

[dr.p]

Well just when I was about to rule assisted suicide constitutional and pull the plug on this thread along comes someone who breaths new life into it.



Since I have you all right where I want you, its time to play the:

(snip: trump... hah)

Do you obey this command:

(snip: Lev. 20:27)

According to your own assertions it is more important to obey God's commands than the commands of the Governing Authorities. In this case the government has forbidden the execution of mediums and spiritists (First Amendment Protections), and in many cases if you stoned them to death AS GOD COMMANDS, you yourself would be executed. Yet I can't remember the last time we had a good stoning. Shouldn't we disobey the Government and execute them anyway since its what God wants?

P.S. the first person who says 'no' and gives some weasily excuse why Leviticus 20:27 no longer applies will be sternly rebuked and reminded that because Leviticus 20:13 OBVIOUSLY still applies Leviticus 20:27 still applies because they are in the same chapter.

As someone stated earlier, Jesus said that the two greatest commandments are: love the Lord thy God, and love they neighbor as thy self.

If you love God, you're willing to do as He commands, knowing that His commandments are not cruel, not evil, not unkind, despite how harsh they may seem. If you love your neighbor, it'll hurt you to do as God asks, if He asks such a thing as stoning them; but it's what He asks.

If that sounds callous or harsh, it's not. I don't like death much, and I hate murder. BUT -- I do understand the reasons that God said those people should be put to death in the OT. I do understand why our governments command it today. And if all those soldiers are willing to kill and die defending their countries, should we not be willing also to kill and die for our Creator?

As for the old Levitical laws still being valid, what did Jesus tell the people who were about to stone the adulteress in John c8? "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone at her." Do you think Jesus would have said the same thing if she had been a spiritist? A lesbian? If it was a homosexual male, instead? I think He would have.

After all those people left, in v11, Jesus said "Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more." Jesus never excused the sin, but pardoned her; gave her a fresh start. The punishments of those verses in Leviticus don't apply, for a number of other reasons besides Jesus's example, reasons I won't go into here. BUT, that doesn't mean the sins named there are any less sinful.

God loves us more than He hates the horrible things we do.

 

[knightlight72]

Well said Dr. P.

I wonder why this topic doesn't have a split off thread about leviticus? It would seem difficult for someone new to jump on without reading pages of posts first. Since Freealaska has jumped subjects, does this clear up following God takes precedence over man?

 

[freealaska]

Well this thread has certainly gotten repetitive. Debate over...as usual I win



Time to hand out the awards woohoo!

 

[freealaska]

The problem is literal biblical interpretation.

Congratulations you win:

The Gold!

Literal Biblical interpretation is generally the number one problem most Christians suffer from. You get the Gold Medal for recognizing this. Also recognize that there are two kinds of biblical translations out there. There are those that attempt to convey a literal translation, and those that are more concerned with communicating concepts. Both are important.

Congrats!

​

 

[freealaska]

I don't really think this is a Christian problem...the ideal should be for everyone: If you believe that a law is immoral, or requires you to disobey your morals/ethics, then disobey the law, but be prepared and willing to accept whatever punishment you receive.

Congratulations you win:

The Silver!

Since your post went completely uncontested by others, that must mean you were right and they were too afraid to challenge you

​

 

[freealaska]

As freealaska already noted, the authority in this case was not a government but rather a religious order. This becomes more clear by reading the first verse of Acts 4:

"And as they spake unto the people, the priests, and the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees, came upon them."

An even more careful reading than your own will notice that the did not contradict this authority even. Here is verse 19 from the KJV which is a bit clearer than the one you use:

"But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye."

Even though Peter and John knew what was right, they still submitted to this religious authority, made their case and awaited judgement by this authority.

The scene is played out in verse 21 which shows the decision of the Sadducees:

"So when they had further threatened them, they let them go, finding nothing how they might punish them, because of the people: for all men glorified God for that which was done."

So in the end the Sadducees let Peter and John go, having decided not to punish them. Peter and John made their case in court, but remained in submission to that court throughout.




Jesus was a superb lawyer on top of everything else and when faced with the question of "Are you the Son of God?" put to him by the Council, it is worth noting that Jesus response was "You say that I am". He did not admit it but rather let the Council itself say it for Him. He does this again when Pilate asks Him "Are you the King of the Jews?" and He answers "You say it". Jesus knew that an admission by Himself on these counts would have had Him found guilty and so did not answer the question. Further proof of even Jesus' submittance to the authorities.

Congratulations you win:

The Bronze!

You made some excellent points. I know they were excellent because nobody who challenged them was able to do so in a meaningful manner (i.e. they basically just repeated their own flawed points over-and-over without listening to what you had to say). I would have given you the Gold or the Silver...but you did start the trend that ultimately made the thread monotonous and eventually destroyed the discussion.

​

 

[freealaska]

You may wish to reconsider whether or not you have the authority to make demands or speak on my behalf. If there was a misinterpretation that I was somehow submitting to "your authority", allow me to clarify by stating that is not the case.

OP check: Judging others.

Congratulations you win:

The "Attacking the Messenger" decorative poster. Hang it on your cubical wall as a warning to others.

​

 

[freealaska]

Setting me up? Here's a question to answer your question. Where does it say that we are not to listen to God's commands?

Congratulations you win:

Award!

Never answer a question with a question.

​

 

[freealaska]

That's all for now folks. Congratulations to all our award winners!




P.S. Nobody wins the booby prize this thread. That's actually a good thing as it shows that most people were thoughtful and at least civil. On the other hand it is also a bad thing because now I have to find a home for an obnoxious blue-footed booby, and I just don't have the money to build a blue-footed booby rookery at this point

 

[knightlight72]

Gee, I thought for sure with some of your posts you were a sure win for the booby prize.

 

[freealaska]

Gee, I thought for sure with some of your posts you were a sure win for the booby prize.

Fortunately that's why I was appointed Judge and you remain a common citizen. Its only because I'm able to discern the finer points of "what's good" and "what reeks"

But I won't let your sour grapes spoil my mood. If you wish to win a medal next time just make more of an effort to think before you post.