The Real Deal

BondGirl said:

2nd - how did the discussion go from wine to abortion?

Jes curious....

Click to expand...

Actually, the convo has not changed, the premise is still the same. Men attempting to legislate their personal moral preferences so that others are required to abide by them.

Peace

Actually, no it is the government we are asking to legislate. And they are given that role by God.

tall73 said:

Actually, no it is the government we are asking to legislate. And they are given that role by God.

Click to expand...

I disagree... the government is of this world. The ruler of this world is Satan. So in essence all human governments are proxies of Satan.... Jesus clearly stated that His kingdom is NOT of this world..... The bible is clear that this world will pass away.... so I am not going to ask the government to legislate anything..... Our position has to be like Daniel while in exile.... He lived there but he did not seek to be a part of the political workings of the government...

IMO that is the problem now... too many religious folks in bed with politicians... it is not nor has ever been a healthy marriage...

tall73 said:

A. there was supposed to be a question mark after black and white.

B. No Jesus didn't change the government--but then it was a dictatorship. But we have a democracy, so why should we not use our vote? Are we to ignore all morality just so we don't get persecuted in the end? When we alread know that persecution will happen anyway.

C. As to translations, biblical usage to me is the key factor. There are many texts where it is quite plain what it means. So when the one instance is unclear it can be clarified by the other usage.

D. People who bomb clinincs have little to do with Christians who vote to uphold the moral role of government.

E. I see no reason to let millions of babies to die because I am worried about hypocrites who bomb buildings, or about imposing my morality. Do you think if Jesus could have helped end the killing of babies by voting he wouldn't?

Click to expand...

A. OK, you see the abortion issue as black and white I do not, so we agree to differ
B. I am not suggesting we ignore all morality but my question is how far do we go? For example Why not start a lobby to punish unmarried people who have kids?
D. I agree but in their eyes they are as Christian (those who profess to be) as we believe we are.
E. Did Jesus end all social problems when He was on earth? Did He start a campaign to end the Roman slavery system? If He had the vote we can only guess what He would do its all conjecture based on our own personal opinion.
So you want to end abortions how you gonna do that force women at gunpoint to give birth?

PaleHorse said:

Actually, the convo has strayed greatly from the OP and is on an entirely different topic now.

Thanks

Click to expand...

Since you opted to address my post I am happy to clarify. Please notice that my response was to another person who was responding to yet another persons post, not yours in particular.

However it is very interesting note that you have edited your original full page "essay" to what it says currently. One can only assume this was done because at least two Adventist ministers and a few other folk have explained that your original essay can not substantiate your premise that the bible forbids consuming wine.

Let me clarify so there is no misunderstanding. Not one person here, minister or otherwise, has stated that consuming wine is wise or prefered by anyone. It has simply been pointed out that the original premise, that the word of God forbids the consumption of wine, does not line up with what Gods word actually says period. Thus, the reasonable conclusion is that the premise is based on ones personal moral perception or preference. No matter how one spins it, the word of God does not say what the OP originally claimed.

Be Blessed

Some may find the following information beneficial. The words topic and premise are not the same.
[font=arial,sans-serif]top·ic[/font]
[font=arial,sans-serif][size=-1]n.[/size][/font]

1. The subject of a speech, essay, thesis, or discourse.
2. A subject of discussion or conversation.
3. A subdivision of a theme, thesis, or outline. See Synonyms at subject.
4. Linguistics A word or phrase in a sentence, usually providing information from previous discourse or shared knowledge, that the rest of the sentence elaborates or comments on. Also called theme[font=arial,sans-serif][size=-1].[/size][/font]

[font=arial,sans-serif]prem·ise[/font]
[font=arial,sans-serif][size=-1]n.[/size][/font]

1. A proposition upon which an argument is based or from which a conclusion is drawn.
2. Logic a. One of the propositions in a deductive argument. b. Either the major or the minor proposition of a syllogism, from which the conclusion is drawn.
3. [font=arial,sans-serif][size=-1]premises[/size][/font] Law The preliminary or explanatory statements or facts of a document, as in a deed.

PaleHorse said:

What change did I make other than some spelling corrections?

Click to expand...

I apologize. I am thinking of the other OP regarding the same subject here: OP
Applied to that op the conclusion would be the same.

StormyOne said:

I disagree... the government is of this world. The ruler of this world is Satan. So in essence all human governments are proxies of Satan.... Jesus clearly stated that His kingdom is NOT of this world..... The bible is clear that this world will pass away.... so I am not going to ask the government to legislate anything..... Our position has to be like Daniel while in exile.... He lived there but he did not seek to be a part of the political workings of the government...

IMO that is the problem now... too many religious folks in bed with politicians... it is not nor has ever been a healthy marriage...

Click to expand...

A. to Palehorse: I understand you feel this is a different topic. But it is not quite so. We have more or less exhausted the narrow portion of the topic that deals with the biblical evidence on prohibitions of drink, definitions of alcoholic etc. Now we are looking at implications. And the implications go beyond mrerely drinking. But I will try to wrap up my participation on this particular aspect.

B. Daniel held high political positions in two foreign administrations.

C. RO 13:1 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4 For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.

Please identify for me where it says that the government is a proxie of Satan. While Satan no doubt has an influence at times the world is still God's and everything in it (Psalm 24) by creation and now redemption. And the Scriptures leave no doubt that God ordained the gov. for a specific moral role.

D. One more note on the topic however....

During Jesus story about new and old wine in the story of the wineskins he makes a comment about people who have had the old not wanting the new. Of course He is using an illustration for something else...

Tall the foundation for human governments being proxies for Satan can be found in the thread I started called Love Not the World... we can continue there if you are so inclined....

During Jesus story about new and old wine in the story of the wineskins he makes a comment about people who have had the old not wanting the new. Of course He is using an illustration for something else...(tall73)

Click to expand...

It is interesting that the first miracle that Jesus preformed was turning the water into wine.

In the communion service the word wine is used again.

I believe the illustration Jesus used in what you have wrote about is to do with the covenants.

People wanted to go back to old covenant, they did then and many want to do that today.

In a nut shell the old covenant is righteousness by works.

The Children of Israel said to God and Moses that

"all that the Lords has we will do"

We cannot have victory on or in our own strength at all.

Wine is symbolic of the blood of Jesus.

We know that this cannot be in any way alcoholic wine. It is the pure juice of the grape.

Cliff2 said:

In a nut shell the old covenant is righteousness by works.

Click to expand...

While men may have construed the old covenant as 'righteousness by works', God neither designed it nor intended it as such. Since Adam and Eve were driven from Eden, all men have been born in sin and shapen in iniquity and righteousness could only be obtained after remission of sins... and without the shedding of blood there could be no remission. The system of sacrifices for sin that looked forward to the coming atonement through the blood of Jesus was the temporary remedy one needed after he transgressed the law.

The law was always a 'schoolmaster'; it educated men on their need of a Savior...and how great the chasm was between a Holy God and His fallen creation... but it never made any righteous. Even if one kept the law perfectly in thought word and deed from birth until death, he would *still* stand in need of a Savior.

The Children of Israel said to God and Moses that "all that the Lords has we will do"

Click to expand...

And then they proceeded to make and worship an idol as soon as Moses went up the mount. Their making this statement was the exemplification of what Paul speaks of in Romans chapter 7 where 'the good they would, they did not, but the evil they would not, *that*, they did.

In His service,
Mr. J

Closed at request of OP.