"universal rights of the people"

[HappyChristian]

#1: Jerry8, my post was not in reference to your recent post...it was in toto regarding previous threads re: the War for Independence, etc. And as far as not becoming to me, whether as a moderator or not - that's the pot calling the kettle black, I'm afraid. You are a pastor, and there are many posts you make that are cutting, unkind, and unChristian. There was a point to my post, and that was simply that, many times (not all - there are many times I agree with and enjoy your posts) you seem to word things in a way which indicates that you think others are carnal Christians if they do not agree with you, or they do not know scripture, or they are just plain not saved. If that hasn't been your intent, then I apologize. But if it hasn't been your intent, mayhap you could rethink how you word things...(oh, and BTW - all men were created equal. We are all sinners in the need of a Saviour. Our founders' use of the term in no way indicated size, riches, etc...it was an indication of mankind's standing before God and in their God-given right to liberty.

#2: John: Simply put, we use the same scriptures. The fallacious views are your interpretation of them. And your double standard in regards to the War for Independence and our founders actions. You maintain that the War of Northern Aggression was a right one to fight (and I am in total agreement), but that the War for Independence was rebellion and that our founders (and that means more than just those involved in the founding of the government) were sinners to do what they did. You totally disregard historical documentation as to what scripture means regarding government (and the Republican form we were given).

As to one pointing to what Baptists do today: I wouldn't. Simply because they are not all doing right (and BC is Southern Baptist for photo-op only...not a good example) (and, BTW, I would actually regard the Episcopalians of our founding era to be more biblical than a good majority of Baptists and Bible churches of today...read some of their sermons - they are boucoup convicting). But the plain fact of the matter is that the Baptists of our founding era were persecuted for their beliefs (by those who wanted to create a theocracy) - the very beliefs that we hold dear today. They shed their blood for and worked toward religious liberty for us. That liberty that did not exist under the oppression of the king. The one you claim it was unscriptural to separate from - totally ignoring the fact that every time you vote, or express a political opinion, you actually do the same thing, on a smaller scale.

In eternity, it won't matter what any of us think, that is true (although you'll see then that the colonists were right ). As to Thomas Jefferson - if you've ever read any of my posts on him, you will know that I emphatically do not believe he was a Christian (mainly because he says so in so many of his own words). I am quite aware of the warts that are in our history as a country. But I am also quite aware of the blessing that it has been to live my almost (3 days away) 51 years here in this country (I realize that is a drop in the bucket to some of our members...but it is a good many years!). She has more warts now than ever, but is still the best place to live (I don't see anyone really trying to leave...rather, I see a lot trying to get here - and I don't just mean illegals. I mean people who know America offers a better life, even with her warts, than the countries where they live).

It is a shame that other countries need to send missionaries here. It is a blot on Christians here in America, that is for sure. Isn't it interesting how the slide back into bondage politically mirrors the falling away from Christianity in this country. And yet, God wasn't in on the founding (oh, do not say He was...if the War for Independence was simple unBiblical rebellion against God's rulers, then God didn't bless anything to do with the formation of our government. I know, dumb statement, but there it is...)

BTW - this isn't intended to be an argument, as I said earlier I wasn't going to argue. But I felt there was some explaining that needed to be done, since it didn't seem like my previous post was understood.

[John81]

So I guess that if you were a German Christian living in the day of Hitler, you would have sat by and been complicit in his murder of millions of Jews. He was the government authority, and the Scriputre tells us to obey the government authorities. Under your reasonsing, you would have sat by, gone to church, and been happy, while turning a blind eye towards the slaughter of millions of innocent people. They had no rights, as you say. THey should just sit back and accept it. Many German Christians did just that. I guess they took your view of Scripture.

Dietrich Bonhoffer, on the other hand, returned to Germany, opposed Hitler, and was ultimately put to death for his faith in Christ and standing up for the rights Jewish people.

I cannot in any way comprehend how anyone, with any moral compass, can say there are no universal rights. Saying that, you just throw morals out the window and are no different than a moral relativist. Saying there are not universal rights is also saying there are not universal truths.

Dietrich Bonhoffer followed his own dictates not those of Scripture.

Millions of babies are murdered in America each year because the government has made such legal. The president supports this fully. Are you following in Bonhoffer's steps in dealing with this situation as he did?

Scripture says Christians are to walk in the Spirit, obeying the Word of God, praying for everyone and all things, and we are to TRUST GOD with the outcome. Christians are not supposed to violate Scripture in order to "help God" bring about what we think needs to be done in the time we think it needs to be done. Scripture is full of examples of those who tried to "help God" and it never turns out well. On the other hand, we see that those who did trust God, even in the darkest of times (Habbakuk, for one), did well.

Please post the verses of Scripture which declare there are universal rights that governments must provide and Christians are to demand, even through the use of violence.

One might also read the New Testament and notice how the Christians lived under a government that murdered people at will, provided no "universal rights" to all those under their thumb and greatly persecuted Christians to the point of murdering thousands of them. God directed them, through the Word, to live by His Word, to willingly suffer the ills of this world while holding true to His Word, knowing that our example would serve God's will and that our reward would far outweigh any suffering in this world.

[HappyChristian]

Oh, John. :bang:

[no name joe]

Dietrich Bonhoffer followed his own dictates not those of Scripture.

Millions of babies are murdered in America each year because the government has made such legal. The president supports this fully. Are you following in Bonhoffer's steps in dealing with this situation as he did?

Scripture says Christians are to walk in the Spirit, obeying the Word of God, praying for everyone and all things, and we are to TRUST GOD with the outcome. d uChristians are not supposed to violate Scripture in order to "help God" bring about what we think needs to be done in the time we think it needs to be done. Scripture is full of examples of those who tried to "help God" and it never turns out well. On the other hand, we see that those who did trust God, even in the darkest of times (Habbakuk, for one), did well.

Please post the verses of Scripture which declare there are universal rights that governments must provide and Christians are to demand, even through the use of violence.

One might also read the New Testament and notice how the Christians lived under a government that murdered people at will, provided no "universal rights" to all those under their thumb and greatly persecuted Christians to the point of murdering thousands of them. God directed them, through the Word, to live by His Word, to willingly suffer the ills of this world while holding true to His Word, knowing that our example would serve God's will and that our reward would far outweigh any suffering in this world.

Bonhoffer did not follow Scripture? Are you kidding me? He is one example of a modern Christian who sacrificed EVERYTHING for the sake of Christ. He gave up an easy life in the US to go back and work int he chruch in Germany to oppose evil. As a result he lost his life. I guess Paul and Peter and John lived according to their own dictates and not Scripture when they sacrificed for the sake of Christ. Have you read his work "The Cost of Discipleship"? How can anyone read this and say he follows his own dictates and not Scripture.

God has always worked through people to bring about his justice here on earth. Scripture? Let us start with Moses. Moses stood up against an oppressive king who enslaved the nation of Israel. I guess he lived according to his on dictates when he opposed the king and led Israel out of slavery. I guess all of the judges lived according to their own dictates when they did the same thing. I guess Jesus ignored scripture when he saved the adultrous woman from stoning and oppressive officials and forgave her for her sin.

What about church history? Luther worked according to his own dictates when he opposed the oppressive practices of the catholic church and began the Protestant reformation.

You are truly unbelievable to me. I am not saying violence is appropriate for a Christian. I am saying that there are many times when the poor and oppressed need help and need justice. Many times God works through people to bring about that justice. James imlores us to care for the widow and the orphans. Jesus cared for teh sick, the lonely, the weary. If we do not stand up for the same, are we a follower of Christ?

As always, I have come to the point where I cannot continue this debate. You do not want to discuss and learn. You want to argue and claim superiority over a topic by putting down any opposing view. If anyone brings up a view that does not match 100% with yours, then you claim that view is unbiblical. Edited February 23, 2011 by kindofblue1977

[HappyChristian]

Bonhoffer did not follow Scripture? Are you kidding me? He is one example of a modern Christian who sacrificed EVERYTHING for the sake of Christ. He gave up an easy life in the US to go back and work int he chruch in Germany to oppose evil. As a result he lost his life. I guess Paul and Peter and John lived according to their own dictates and not Scripture when they sacrificed for the sake of Christ. Have you read his work "The Cost of Discipleship"? How can anyone read this and say he follows his own dictates and not Scripture.

God has always worked through people to bring about his justice here on earth. Scripture? Let us start with Moses. Moses stood up against an oppressive king who enslaved the nation of Israel. I guess he lived according to his on dictates when he opposed the king and led Israel out of slavery. I guess all of the judges lived according to their own dictates when they did the same thing. I guess Jesus ignored scripture when he saved the adultrous woman from stoning and oppressive officials and forgave her for her sin.

What about church history? Luther worked according to his own dictates when he opposed the oppressive practices of the catholic church and began the Protestant reformation.

You are truly unbelievable to me. I am not saying violence is appropriate for a Christian. I am saying that there are many times when the poor and oppressed need help and need justice. Many times God works through people to bring about that justice. James imlores us to care for the widow and the orphans. Jesus cared for teh sick, the lonely, the weary. If we do not stand up for the same, are we a follower of Christ?

As always, I have come to the point where I cannot continue this debate. You do not want to discuss and learn. You want to argue and claim superiority over a topic by putting down any opposing view. If anyone brings up a view that does not match 100% with yours, then you claim that view is unbiblical.

No reps left... :goodpost:

[Guest]

Just a couple things that I'll add to the fracas.

I've noticed in much of the above the Levitical Law is left out of the discussion.
There are freedoms and directives given for basic human rights to the Israelites and to sojourners.

Also, the Roman Citizen had rights else Paul could not appeal to Caesar.


Personal thought (purely hypothetical)...

If an all Christian nation were formed, the government would also be formed of Christians.
If a democracy or republic government were declared from a majority Christian populace most likely that government would adhere to Christian preference. (this is important and we need to revisit it later)
Now, we know Christians commit sins (break laws), all shake head yes.
How would the Christian government deal with (1) law breakers and (2) exterior beligerants (terrorists, et al)?
How would that government be obliged to interpret Romans 13:1-7?
Romans 13:1-7
1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

[John81]

Can anyone point out in Scripture where Christians are told to work to assasinate a government leader?

[Invicta]

I am not sure that the aboriginals in America had any rights. In fact I read that many fled north to be under the protection of "The Great White Mother." (I suppose that must have been Queen Vic,)

The declaration of the rights of man was made by humanists and anti Christians.

Approved by the National Assembly of France, August 26, 1789

The representatives of the French people, organized as a National Assembly, believing that the ignorance, neglect, or contempt of the rights of man are the sole cause of public calamities and of the corruption of governments, have determined to set forth in a solemn declaration the natural, unalienable, and sacred rights of man, in order that this declaration, being constantly before all the members of the Social body, shall remind them continually of their rights and duties; in order that the acts of the legislative power, as well as those of the executive power, may be compared at any moment with the objects and purposes of all political institutions and may thus be more respected, and, lastly, in order that the grievances of the citizens, based hereafter upon simple and incontestable principles, shall tend to the maintenance of the constitution and redound to the happiness of all. Therefore the National Assembly recognizes and proclaims, in the presence and under the auspices of the Supreme Being, the following rights of man and of the citizen:
Articles:

1. Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be founded only upon the general good.

2. The aim of all political association is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man. These rights are liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression.

3. The principle of all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation. No body nor individual may exercise any authority which does not proceed directly from the nation.

4. Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law.

5. Law can only prohibit such actions as are hurtful to society. Nothing may be prevented which is not forbidden by law, and no one may be forced to do anything not provided for by law.

6. Law is the expression of the general will. Every citizen has a right to participate personally, or through his representative, in its foundation. It must be the same for all, whether it protects or punishes. All citizens, being equal in the eyes of the law, are equally eligible to all dignities and to all public positions and occupations, according to their abilities, and without distinction except that of their virtues and talents.

7. No person shall be accused, arrested, or imprisoned except in the cases and according to the forms prescribed by law. Any one soliciting, transmitting, executing, or causing to be executed, any arbitrary order, shall be punished. But any citizen summoned or arrested in virtue of the law shall submit without delay, as resistance constitutes an offense.

8. The law shall provide for such punishments only as are strictly and obviously necessary, and no one shall suffer punishment except it be legally inflicted in virtue of a law passed and promulgated before the commission of the offense.

9. As all persons are held innocent until they shall have been declared guilty, if arrest shall be deemed indispensable, all harshness not essential to the securing of the prisoner's person shall be severely repressed by law.

10. No one shall be disquieted on account of his opinions, including his religious views, provided their manifestation does not disturb the public order established by law.

11. The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law.

12. The security of the rights of man and of the citizen requires public military forces. These forces are, therefore, established for the good of all and not for the personal advantage of those to whom they shall be intrusted.

13. A common contribution is essential for the maintenance of the public forces and for the cost of administration. This should be equitably distributed among all the citizens in proportion to their means.

14. All the citizens have a right to decide, either personally or by their representatives, as to the necessity of the public contribution; to grant this freely; to know to what uses it is put; and to fix the proportion, the mode of assessment and of collection and the duration of the taxes.

15. Society has the right to require of every public agent an account of his administration.

16. A society in which the observance of the law is not assured, nor the separation of powers defined, has no constitution at all.

17. Since property is an inviolable and sacred right, no one shall be deprived thereof except where public necessity, legally determined, shall clearly demand it, and then only on condition that the owner shall have been previously and equitably indemnified.

This was after the revolution began which soon became the reign of terror.

The cry "Liberté, égalité, fraternité," the motto if the French state, some believe to be the three unclean spirits like frogs in Rev. 16:13. Three frogs were on the royal standard of France.

PS. Should a woman be giving bible instruction to men?

[John81]

I am not sure that the aboriginals in America had any rights. In fact I read that many fled north to be under the protection of "The Great White Mother." (I suppose that must have been Queen Vic,)

The declaration of the rights of man was made by humanists and anti Christians.



This was after the revolution began which soon became the reign of terror.

The cry "Liberté, égalité, fraternité," the motto if the French state, some believe to be the three unclean spirits like frogs in Rev. 16:13. Three frogs were on the royal standard of France.

PS. Should a woman be giving bible instruction to men?

:amen:

[trc123]

I am not sure that the aboriginals in America had any rights. In fact I read that many fled north to be under the protection of "The Great White Mother." (I suppose that must have been Queen Vic,)

The declaration of the rights of man was made by humanists and anti Christians.

This was after the revolution began which soon became the reign of terror.

The cry "Liberté, égalité, fraternité," the motto if the French state, some believe to be the three unclean spirits like frogs in Rev. 16:13. Three frogs were on the royal standard of France.

PS. Should a woman be giving bible instruction to men?

Answer: Yes - If she agrees with the man's point of view; No - If she disagrees with the man's point of view.

P.S. That's pretty much how guy's who question if a woman can instruct a man look at it.......... :smilie_loco:4

[John81]

Answer: Yes - If she agrees with the man's point of view; No - If she disagrees with the man's point of view.

P.S. That's pretty much how guy's who question if a woman can instruct a man look at it..........

I had to double-check to see what you were talking about. That's a very broad brush you are painting with. There are many Christ-centered men who do indeed look to such issues as the Bible speaks and not as their flesh desires.

Had you said some, a lot or perhaps even many, rather than the way you stated it (which seems to indicate the idea that most men think this way), I could agree with you. There are indeed many men who are not Christ-centered who do indeed view things as you say.

That said, I've noticed nothing from Invicta on this board to give the impression that he takes a fleshly view, rather than a biblical view, to matters dealing with this.

[rancher824]

Actually when this topic came up before, Jerry, myself and some others posted much Scripture clearly showing what the Word says. Those who argued against what the Word said, didn't have alternate Scripture to invalidate what was posted.

There is a huge difference between what we in our flesh or what the world finds to be "right" and what is biblically right for Christians.

There is no basic human rights the Word tells us we are to demand from governments. There are no basic human rights put forth in Scripture which demand that Christians riot, rebel or fight for.

Loving our neighbors as ourselves is an individual command that each Christian is to personally live by. Above that comes loving God first and with ALL our heart, mind, soul and strength. Nowhere does this translate into governments having to grant freedom of speech, freedom of internet, low taxes, pursuit of happiness, more food on store shelves or any such thing.

Christians are to be the salt and light of the world, living according to the Word of God regardless of what form of government we live under, regardless of whether or not our leaders are elected, appointed, determined by heredity, or whatever. Christians are called to love our leaders, to pray for them and to be obedient unto them.

Scripture also lets us know that all human governments are corrupt regardless of what they call themselves. What God had Samuel tell the people of Israel life under a human government would be like applies across the board and has been proven out over the centuries.

Paul, John, James and the other apostles lived under a government most of us couldn't comprehend in terms of tyranny and lack of "rights", yet nowhere did they tell Christians there exists some "universal rights" they should fight for or demand. Instead, Scripture tells Christians to accept where they are in life, obey the Word of God, pray for our leaders, pray for those who persecute and mistreat us, show all Christian love, to pay our taxes, and be about living for Christ rather than concerning ourselves with other matters.

I think you need to reread this thread before making that first statement. Myself and others did give you verses as answer to your belief. I admit they were mostly old testament, and you said they did not count because they were not "christians". But then you used the example of how David handled Saul (also in your estimation not a christian even though they were all saved by the same blood as you and I.) Just another example of how many people will only look at the verses that agree with what they want, and throw the others out as "not applying to this discution."

[John81]

I think you need to reread this thread before making that first statement. Myself and others did give you verses as answer to your belief. I admit they were mostly old testament, and you said they did not count because they were not "christians". But then you used the example of how David handled Saul (also in your estimation not a christian even though they were all saved by the same blood as you and I.) Just another example of how many people will only look at the verses that agree with what they want, and throw the others out as "not applying to this discution."

Christians are held to much higher standards than were those of the OT and the NT deals with how Christians are to live.

The pointing out of how David conducted himself was a contrast to what others posted from the OT, not a statement of the OT overruling the clear teachings of the NT regarding how Christians are to live and conduct themselves. We, Christians, are under the NT and nothing in the OT trumps the instruction given to Christians in the NT.

I'm not looking at or even looking for verses that agree with me. In fact, what the NT says regarding these matters goes against my preferences. What I am looking for is what God has to say and how God says I am to live and whether what God says agrees or disagrees with me, if I'm going to be a true follower of Christ, I must accept the Word and obey the Word.

The fact is, Christians are held to very high standards across the board. Among these high standards are laying down ourselves completely and following the Word, trusing God to be true to His Word that He if we do things His way, He will work all things together for good. I'm certain that doing things God's way is best, is perfect, and far superior to anything I or anyone else could come up with.

[HappyChristian]

As to women "instructing" men:

#1. This is a forum, as has been discussed in the past, and therefore open to any members who BroMatt allows. As such, discussion takes place wherein disagreement lies. And at times, said disagreement will be between men and women. Things will be pointed out, whether they be historical fact, Biblical verses/principles, opinions, etc. And there will be times a woman is correct. If that equals instruction, so be it.

#2. This is not a church, therefore there are no men on here who have spiritual authority over any of the women (save, of course, for those married couples who participate). Therefore, it is open game to discuss Bible. The only man who has complete spiritual (and other) authority over me, for example, is my husband. It is his decision as to whether or not I submit to other men (i.e. my pastors, a boss at a job, BroMatt as far as my moderating here goes). Unless and until he gives someone on this board spiritual authority over me (which he won't, because that is not Biblical), then we are equals. I know that won't go over well with some, but it is Biblical fact.

[John81]

As to women "instructing" men:

#1. This is a forum, as has been discussed in the past, and therefore open to any members who BroMatt allows. As such, discussion takes place wherein disagreement lies. And at times, said disagreement will be between men and women. Things will be pointed out, whether they be historical fact, Biblical verses/principles, opinions, etc. And there will be times a woman is correct. If that equals instruction, so be it.

#2. This is not a church, therefore there are no men on here who have spiritual authority over any of the women (save, of course, for those married couples who participate). Therefore, it is open game to discuss Bible. The only man who has complete spiritual (and other) authority over me, for example, is my husband. It is his decision as to whether or not I submit to other men (i.e. my pastors, a boss at a job, BroMatt as far as my moderating here goes). Unless and until he gives someone on this board spiritual authority over me (which he won't, because that is not Biblical), then we are equals. I know that won't go over well with some, but it is Biblical fact.

The personal applications here aside, these are the same arguments some use to say that women can instruct men in biblical matters anywhere outside the church in any capacity other than as a pastor. Most fundamentalist I'm familiar with vehemently argue against such. Many proclaim such isn't the proper, Christian thing for a Christian woman to be doing, whether in an informal setting or something more formal. One point that is sometimes brought up is that such would only be appropriate in a limited manner if it were a husband and wife, instructing together.