Steve_S
-
Posts
5,208 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Steve_S
-
-
-
We obliterated dictators armies...... those armies kept those countries from being subjected to Sharia Law as their basic legal system. When the US came in and took out the dictators, or assessed the Islamics in defeating the dictators we made it possible for those countries to be ruled by Sharia Law....... and when that happened Christians started to be seriously persecuted....
The only real Islamic army we've come across is in Afganistan...... and we're still there and still loosing people and don't seem any closer to giving them something other than Sharia law....... which dictates the downfall of Western Civilization.
The united states could do away with sharia law if it so chose, it has the ability to wipe out islam entirely, that's just not a moral act as hundreds of millions of people would perish, to be sure. History has shown us that the only way to completely subjugate an unwilling population is through settlement and extermination or enslavement. It's that simple. This isn't a US versus muslim issue with regards to why the US can't "win the peace" so to speak. This is a political correct tactic verses proven tactic issue.
To be sure, I'm not advocating these tactics, at all, I'm against them. But as far as what has been proven to work, they are the ones that have been.
The brotherhood has a very good plan to bring down the US government and they are more than half way through the process, and unless someone in power starts to get it we really are doomed and so by our own hand.
I've been hearing these muslims are going to take over the US government from the inside or through conquest conspiracy theories for over 10 years. It's not feasible, simply not feasible. I've read scenarios and i quite simply do not see it happening.
-
We obliterated dictators armies...... those armies kept those countries from being subjected to Sharia Law as their basic legal system. When the US came in and took out the dictators, or assessed the Islamics in defeating the dictators we made it possible for those countries to be ruled by Sharia Law....... and when that happened Christians started to be seriously persecuted....
The only real Islamic army we've come across is in Afganistan...... and we're still there and still loosing people and don't seem any closer to giving them something other than Sharia law....... which dictates the downfall of Western Civilization.
The united states could do away with sharia law if it so chose, it has the ability to wipe out islam entirely, that's just not a moral act as hundreds of millions of people would perish, to be sure. History has shown us that the only way to completely subjugate an unwilling population is through settlement and extermination or enslavement. It's that simple. This isn't a US versus muslim issue with regards to why the US can't "win the peace" so to speak. This is a political correct tactic verses proven tactic issue.
To be sure, I'm not advocating these tactics, at all, I'm against them. But as far as what has been proven to work, they are the ones that have been.
-
Unless I'm mistaken, what Gary means is that the Islamic people follow the precepts of their religion much more than we do. So God may very well see them as being righteous in the way they understand righteousness to be.
And just like He allowed other nations to over come and capture ancient Israel, He may do something similar to us. Unless we turn from our sins and repent of our evil ways.
The nation of Israel was God's chosen people in OT times, but I'd say we are His chosen people now. We started out as a nation who carried God in our bosom, and until the last 50 years or so, that was still true. He blessed us in WW2 because that was a war we were losing. So God blessed America and we won. But in the 50's the tide started to change, and by the 60's it did change. The 70's started what would become full bloom now.
I think Satan has much to do with this, as the unparalleled success of certain music and TV shows, paved the way for America's youth to believe we were doing nothing wrong with free sex, and idolizing fictional characters on TV, the movies, and in comic books. All this helped Americans give up on following God, and in many cases even believing in God. By the early 80's atheists were becoming common as were homosexuals.
Now we've reached a point where very few of us want to obey God, and give up as many sins as we can. To stop sinning one must will for it to happen. God isn't going to make it happen. What He will do is make it possible for us to do it. But we have to will for it to happen and want it to be. And when we see we have given up a certain sin, don't go back to it.
If we do this, we may not have to fight more wars. If we must fight Islam, then if we do this first, maybe then God will allow us to win.
The united states has OBLITERATED every islamic army it has ever faced up to and including iraq and afghanistan. The united states doesn't seem to do so well in countries such as this after taking control of them due to guerrilla tactics. In light of this I must ask if you're saying that God will allow us to occupy and bend these countries wills successfully, because if you just look at it at face value, the islamics hit the world trade center and in return two of their entire countries got CONQUERED, occupied, and hundreds of thousands of them perished with a far smaller human toll in terms of lives lost on the side of the united states. The conquest of iraq in 2003 is probably the most swift defeat and subjugation of a country in the known history of warfare (about 84 hours to have almost total military control of a country with 30 million people who had a standing professional army and only using a combined force of 500,000, this is simply unparalleled in military history). So perhaps you mean that God will allow us to successfully occupy these nations? Their militaries were swiftly defeated and that is without dispute.
With regards to their righteousness, they persecute Christians and Jews on a grand scale. Even if you're a replacement theologian, which it seems you are, as you seem to think the old covenant has been entirely replaced by the new, they persecute Christians on a grand scale and they worship an idolatrous false god reading from religious texts that call Jesus a liar, I do not see how on earth you extrapolate this into righteousness. Being incredibly loyal to a false heathen god is just that, the very nature of that act is contrary to everything the scriptures call good. Comparing them with the church is lunacy, my friend.
-
Yes, and apparently this Foreign Policy debacle of Historical proportions is all Governor Romneys fault.
Exactly, he's the one who ordered a bombing campaign to support this regime's rise to power (oh wait, maybe it wasn't him, who knows, it's hard to remember things such as this through all the hope and change our current administration has brought us) and supported the entire "arab spring" debacle, which has been, from day one, an attempt to seize power by the very most radical factions of a very radical religion.
-
-
If you read the Koran, Buchari's Hadith and "Reliance of the Traveller" (authorized english version of Sharia Law) you will find that Islam is at war with western civilization and has been since just after world war II when we broke up the Caliphate..... and if the general public and thier governments don't grasp this, Islam will win this war....
Right now islam has no chance of winning anything against of west and this will remain as such for the foreseeable future. They're just incredibly weak military, INCREDIBLY weak.
Do you really not understand who are the ones that are incredibly weak? It was a sin for David to count the men of Israel ready for war for a specific reason. Numbers and military might are not a factor in who wins the war. The twin towers was a sample of what God is going to allow Islam to do to this nation. We are weak and feeble, ready to die as a nation because we have forsaken our God as a nation. Islam is more righteous before God than we are. They have a strict moral code while we have liberal excess of licentiousness. They fast for a whole month each year while we are the most obese of all peoples. The list goes on and on but people cannot see. Brace for impact.
In Jesus Name,
Gary
I don't even know where to begin here. Islam is more righteous before God than we are? There may not be as many as there were, but there ARE at the least tens of millions of Christians in this nation. One of the sole purposes of Islam is to destroy Christianity, more righteous before God? They lie about Jesus being the Son of God, more righteous? They lie about Moses, Abraham, Isaac, more righteous?
How many of the 10's of millions of Christians are lying about Moses, Abraham, Isaac and Jesus? Understanding judgment is paramount in this case. It is about who God is going to use to judge whom. The fullness of the gentile nations has come in just as the fullness of those nations that Israel judged when they came into the land.
Gary
You're quite bent on this, I'm sorry to say. Touting the righteousness of one of the most hateful, idolatrous religions on earth is going a bit too far.
-
-
If you read the Koran, Buchari's Hadith and "Reliance of the Traveller" (authorized english version of Sharia Law) you will find that Islam is at war with western civilization and has been since just after world war II when we broke up the Caliphate..... and if the general public and thier governments don't grasp this, Islam will win this war....
Right now islam has no chance of winning anything against of west and this will remain as such for the foreseeable future. They're just incredibly weak military, INCREDIBLY weak.
Do you really not understand who are the ones that are incredibly weak? It was a sin for David to count the men of Israel ready for war for a specific reason. Numbers and military might are not a factor in who wins the war. The twin towers was a sample of what God is going to allow Islam to do to this nation. We are weak and feeble, ready to die as a nation because we have forsaken our God as a nation. Islam is more righteous before God than we are. They have a strict moral code while we have liberal excess of licentiousness. They fast for a whole month each year while we are the most obese of all peoples. The list goes on and on but people cannot see. Brace for impact.
In Jesus Name,
Gary
I don't even know where to begin here. Islam is more righteous before God than we are? There may not be as many as there were, but there ARE at the least tens of millions of Christians in this nation. One of the sole purposes of Islam is to destroy Christianity, more righteous before God? They lie about Jesus being the Son of God, more righteous? They lie about Moses, Abraham, Isaac, more righteous?
-
If you read the Koran, Buchari's Hadith and "Reliance of the Traveller" (authorized english version of Sharia Law) you will find that Islam is at war with western civilization and has been since just after world war II when we broke up the Caliphate..... and if the general public and thier governments don't grasp this, Islam will win this war....
Right now islam has no chance of winning anything against of west and this will remain as such for the foreseeable future. They're just incredibly weak military, INCREDIBLY weak.
-
-
The correct answer to this question, for me, is to find our oil or fuel elsewhere, arm Israel to the teeth with every conceivable weapon, and shake the dust from our feet with regards to the muslims.
-
The Holy Bible has been translated into just about every known language of man, and there is NO TRANSLATION that serves as a standard. The STANDARD is the originals in Hebrew and Greek. This explains why most serious Bible students still refer back to the Hebrew and Greek. So, the accuracy of any translation in any language is determined by comparing it to the ORIGINALS - not other TRANSLATIONS. I'll just give thanks that English speaking people have many excellent translations of the Holy Bible to choose from.
Not all the hebrew and greek agree with themselves.
MT/TR all the way.
-
Naomi
Isle
-
Wow! This is a good topic of discussion, and I don't know where to begin. There are some good and bad things I see in regards to separation of Chruch and State. I don't think I would want to be like a communist country where freedom of religion is destroyed. On the other hand, I don't think I would want to be like any of the Muslim country where religion reigns, and we get laws similar to Sharia law.
I think the heart of the problem lies in our values. Over the centuries, it seems that our values have gone down. For example, there was a time when a large majority of people understood that pre-marital sex is wrong and that homosexuality is wrong. Today, people are confused about these issues. They don't see that fornication is wrong and same-sex marriage is viewed as an equal rights issue rather than a moral issue. Some people rationalize that as long as they love each other, it's okay to have sex even if they are not married.
This is not necessarily the case, though, Selene. Look at ancient greece and then afterwards rome. Homosexuality and premarital sex (for men) there were the norms and it was fairly common to own slaves for those specific purposes. So let's not get too caught up in the past, as it's not necessarily as rosy at it may seem at first glance.
-
As I was reading this week in 1 Samuel and the rejection of God in the form of God as king for a man as king, I understood why we have a government that is separate from the church where there is an unclear division of rights and laws.
Gods people are not intended to have a government overseeing them outside of the men of God who guide them in judgment when necessary but the people of the Church have rejected God as ruler and have been made subject unto an increasingly growing government that is bringing them further and further into bondage to laws.
All of this was prophesied to happen in 1 Samuel by the life of Samuel and Saul. Samuel gave his sons to be judges over Israel but his sons did not follow after God. Samuel is a picture of Jesus as High Priest and the overseers of the church as his sons. The churches are not following in his ways and are being rejected by Gods people who cry out for a king because of the darkness within the country and the threat of invasion by other nations through the judgment of God. In response to the rejection of the church as leadership we are given kings or lawmakers and governors along with government military etc for protection from invasion.
Why is it so complex and complicated? Because there are righteous within the country who do not reject God as God and King nor reject the Sons of Samuel who are given unto them for the work of ministering the spirit in their lives. To protect these God allows our corrupt government to do what they do and raises up military personnel to go off to war and be a sacrifice for the sins of the nation as their blood is shed to retain the freedoms of those whom obey.
When the government topples the church and runs over its freedom to worship God it is because the church has forsaken its God and replaced it with idols.
1Sa 12:14 If ye will fear the LORD, and serve him, and obey his voice, and not rebel against the commandment of the LORD, then shall both ye and also the king that reigneth over you continue following the LORD your God: But if ye will not obey the voice of the LORD, but rebel against the commandment of the LORD, then shall the hand of the LORD be against you, as [it was] against your fathers.
As we watch what happened with Saul, he began with a new heart because the people were not so bad off but over time he became corrupt and did what was right in his own eyes, not fearing the Lord. So the Lord took his spirit from him and sent and evil spirit to torment him and Saul spent his time trying to find new ways to kill the one he felt threatened his authority. Eventually Saul (human government) is taken away from the people and David (Jesus), a man after Gods own heart, replaces him.
This is where we are at in the timeline of human history. Human government all over the world is corrupt beyond degree and seeking to destroy anything that threatens their rule on earth especially the church. After the judgment of Gods people for being apostate idol worshipers, human government will be removed and the government will be on the shoulders of the Just One. The transition is going to be bumpy for sure but the end result is going to be awesome.
Come Lord Jesus,
Gary
The United States Constitution is totally devoid of the concept of seperation of church and state. That is a COMMUNIST concept, embodied in Article 10 of the Constitution of the Supreme Soviet. When Jefferson wrote to the Baptists of Danbury CT, his comments were one way comments. The state was not to establish a national church (like the Church of England, the Lutheran Church, etc) but Believers were to influence the way the country was run.
I concur. Just as Saul was an Israelite under the Lord, so are governing officials supposed to be of the faith under God but according to what God wrote in 1 Samuel, when the people stop following God, God changes the leadership to put in leadership who stops following God as well. The constitution means nothing to God, it is a covenant of men between men before God.
Gary
I disagree with the comparisons to ancient Israel here. God recognizes nations as entities and obviously they have to be governed and we are to obey their rules as long as they don't directly conflict with scripture. You're making a comparison to a nation that God established Himself through a direct covenant starting with Abraham because of Abraham's faithfulness. The people of Israel were told directly that God was in charge of them, as a nation, God set up a government with the levites acting as priests and administrators, and God gave them judges to adjudicate and guide. God did not set up the united states of america, but the united states of america was set up by men, a lot of whom were trying to create a country that was free from european style religious oppression (think catholic) so that they could have a place that they would be able to worship God freely.
We aren't in an Israel type situation here and drawing the comparison between Israel's demise and God leaving the united states is without merit. What about the early Christians, some of whom walked with Jesus, many of whom were very faithful and were in the scriptures constantly? They were crucified along the roads going to rome by nero, who was a pagan. We don't know why God does what He does in every single instance or why God allows what He allows in every single instance. You cannot, in my opinion, successfully draw a parallel to a country falling away from God as Israel did without that country having been given what Israel had to start with, which the United States hasn't. Do I think the United States has been blessed? Yes, it seems like it has. Can I prove that? No. Do I think that the United States has now been abandoned by God? I don't know. There are Christians here, a lot of us are yelling from the rooftops that things need to change or we're going to lose the wonderful life that we have. That's not really what THIS conversation is about though. The main crux of this matter Gary is that we just don't know, there's a logical line of reasoning whereas you could draw a reasonable conclusion, but that doesn't pass scriptural muster so I cannot use it in this situation. All I know for sure is that the united states is in a spiral downward quickly and God CAN save it if He so chooses because He's God and He can do what He wants. Whether He does or does not save it though and why he didn't or did not if he weren't or were to, that we will never know for sure.
-
The United States Constitution is totally devoid of the concept of seperation of church and state. That is a COMMUNIST concept, embodied in Article 10 of the Constitution of the Supreme Soviet. When Jefferson wrote to the Baptists of Danbury CT, his comments were one way comments. The state was not to establish a national church (like the Church of England, the Lutheran Church, etc) but Believers were to influence the way the country was run.
True; the Constitution does not indicate separation of church and state. It only prohibits the establishment, or the confirmation, of any religion by the government.
I prefer to look at this concept as a separation of state from Church.
-
Isn't an attack on an embassy considered an act of war?
Technically, yes, but it wasn't the "government" doing it, so this almost certainly won't be considered that by the administration.
-
Egyptian demonstrators climbed the walls of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo today and pulled down the American flag to protest a film they say is insulting to the prophet Mohammad.
http://www.worthynew...1#-UE-cRK4wDRZ/
The muslims should feel very contented in the fact that the west doesn't fall upon them with its fury every time they insult something that is important to it, because if it did.... Islam wouldn't be around too long.
(I'm not advocating the west do this, at all, I'm just saying, thinking about it from a reverse perspective, about all they can do is storm embassy walls due to how weak and inconsequential their actual militaries actually are, as the west is many orders of magnitude more powerful than the muslims, militarily - it would not end well for them).
-
-
-
Awesomeness.
-
In the recent past, I was part of a church that had a church covenant and articles of organization that one had to agree to in order to be a member of the local body and have rights given unto you for deciding things such as budgets etc. I was led to go back and reread what I agreed to after 3 years of growing in my faith. I realized at that moment that I was a covenant breaker before God that had agreed to place a yoke upon myself that should never have been there in the first place.
I wrote a letter to the pastor explaining that I had to remove myself from the covenant agreement for conscience sake. Here is an expert from his reply to me.
I will share your letter with the deacons and inform the church that you are no longer a member and they should not consider or treat you as if you are a part of the body. I do not think the deacons will pursue questions regarding your decision because you have not shown yourself to be teachable, but contrarian. One voluntarily enters into membership, and we acknowledge that you are free to voluntarily remove yourself from the body for matters of conscience. You need to know that I disagree with your reasoning, at least from what I am able to discern from your letter....
Do not think that by simply “coming” to church and remaining aloof from others that you are fulfilling the bibilical “one-anothers” and commands for unity and one mind in the church. The Holy Spirit will simply not lead someone to act contrary to the written Word of God.
...
Since you have stated your intent to continue to attend, you need to know that the relationship between you and the church body will need to change. I will protect the flock over which the Lord has made me an overseer. I will ask you not to engage any visitor in conversation, lest they mistake you for someone who has identified with and is committed to the beliefs and health of the church body. I cannot allow your unorthodox views to become associated with our church. I also intend to carefully watch your interactions with our church family to guard against any divisive, confusing and harmful false teaching or influences.
I took some time to meditate on that which was said and sent another letter to the pastor to address his accusations toward me, to which I never received a reply.
Be careful who you sign what with as covenant agreements with local bodies are designed for the purpose of control. Once you agree to do that which their covenant says, you are obligated to be under their form of government and control even if it is contrary to that which Jesus said church government would be.
In Jesus Name,
Gary
The main question here would be what your doctrinal differences with him were, because, quite frankly, if you did have significant doctrinal disagreements and he believed that you had went down a doctrinal path which was errant then he would need to do what he did.
There were no doctrinal differences specifically addressed in my letter to him or his letter back to me. The letter simply stated that for conscience sake I had to remove myself from the covenant agreement. But my point is still that we need to be careful as Christians not to enter into written contractual agreements as there is a real danger of placing yourself into harms way without knowing what we're doing.
Gary
I'm not exactly disagreeing with you on that point. But if there were clear doctrinal differences that had been delineated outside of the letters and he saw it as a progression he may have been well within his rights. I'm not advocating for or against you or him, but since he's not here to defend his actions then I think it's important that we not jump to conclusions without all of the facts.
If you think it is important not to jump to conclusions then why are you jumping to the conclusion that there had been doctrinal differences delineated outside of the letters? I posted simple excerpts from a letter I received to relate a warning to others who may find themselves in a similar position. What was your motive for responding to it?
Gary
I'm not assuming for a 100 percent fact that there were doctrinal differences. My main motive for responding to it was this sentence....
Be careful who you sign what with as covenant agreements with local bodies are designed for the purpose of control.
With this (to me, anyway) there was the tacit implication that this applied to your situation. And if this applied to your situation then you were making the accusation that the church in question, and furthermore its pastor, had brought you into a covenant with them for the purpose of control. I just believed that, in fairness since this man is not here to defend himself personally and all we have is a snippet of an email from him and nothing further, that it be pointed out that there could have been valid reasons for him doing so, but I didn't say that there definitely were valid reasons for him doing so. This is not a personal attack on you, Gary, I just thought it important that what could very well be a man of God not have intimations leveled at him lightly without any recourse in a forum such as this with us getting only one part of one side of the story. He could very well be entirely in the wrong, I don't know, I don't know much of the situation, but the statement you wrote before and after the email had a slightly accusatory tone in my eyes. I apologize if that was not your intention and was not the case.
Having said that, I will ask, were there indeed doctrinal differences between you and he?
-
In the recent past, I was part of a church that had a church covenant and articles of organization that one had to agree to in order to be a member of the local body and have rights given unto you for deciding things such as budgets etc. I was led to go back and reread what I agreed to after 3 years of growing in my faith. I realized at that moment that I was a covenant breaker before God that had agreed to place a yoke upon myself that should never have been there in the first place.
I wrote a letter to the pastor explaining that I had to remove myself from the covenant agreement for conscience sake. Here is an expert from his reply to me.
I will share your letter with the deacons and inform the church that you are no longer a member and they should not consider or treat you as if you are a part of the body. I do not think the deacons will pursue questions regarding your decision because you have not shown yourself to be teachable, but contrarian. One voluntarily enters into membership, and we acknowledge that you are free to voluntarily remove yourself from the body for matters of conscience. You need to know that I disagree with your reasoning, at least from what I am able to discern from your letter....
Do not think that by simply “coming” to church and remaining aloof from others that you are fulfilling the bibilical “one-anothers” and commands for unity and one mind in the church. The Holy Spirit will simply not lead someone to act contrary to the written Word of God.
...
Since you have stated your intent to continue to attend, you need to know that the relationship between you and the church body will need to change. I will protect the flock over which the Lord has made me an overseer. I will ask you not to engage any visitor in conversation, lest they mistake you for someone who has identified with and is committed to the beliefs and health of the church body. I cannot allow your unorthodox views to become associated with our church. I also intend to carefully watch your interactions with our church family to guard against any divisive, confusing and harmful false teaching or influences.
I took some time to meditate on that which was said and sent another letter to the pastor to address his accusations toward me, to which I never received a reply.
Be careful who you sign what with as covenant agreements with local bodies are designed for the purpose of control. Once you agree to do that which their covenant says, you are obligated to be under their form of government and control even if it is contrary to that which Jesus said church government would be.
In Jesus Name,
Gary
The main question here would be what your doctrinal differences with him were, because, quite frankly, if you did have significant doctrinal disagreements and he believed that you had went down a doctrinal path which was errant then he would need to do what he did.
There were no doctrinal differences specifically addressed in my letter to him or his letter back to me. The letter simply stated that for conscience sake I had to remove myself from the covenant agreement. But my point is still that we need to be careful as Christians not to enter into written contractual agreements as there is a real danger of placing yourself into harms way without knowing what we're doing.
Gary
I'm not exactly disagreeing with you on that point. But if there were clear doctrinal differences that had been delineated outside of the letters and he saw it as a progression he may have been well within his rights. I'm not advocating for or against you or him, but since he's not here to defend his actions then I think it's important that we not jump to conclusions without all of the facts.
What makes Bible study pointless?
in General Discussion
Posted
Maybe, but I don't think we should say "hey, don't read that if you only want to intellectually dissect the merits of what it teaches!" I understand the general idea behind the statement, but I wish it were a little more specific. I would never, under any circumstances that I could think of, discourage someone from reading the Word of God, no matter what their intentions, because the truth is there.