Tamarisk, ACNR, Sola, Dolly, Bethany -- Christian Theology Discussion Group

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 01:53:45 02/13/03 Thu
Author: Sola Shemei Kicking Up The Dust - again, LOL!
Subject: Tamarisk, ACNR, Sola, Dolly, Bethany
In reply to: tamarisk 's message, "ACNR, Sola, Dolly, Bethany" on 08:11:32 02/12/03 Wed

WARS AND RUMORS OF ...... WAR CONSPIRACIES????

~ ~ ~ �why I don't believe "all governments are ordained by G_d."�

If that refers to some of my comments which do not concur with your own position regarding government and Romans; allow me to briefly restate the short version of my position here so that I may not be misunderstood by others lurking who are new.

Romans 13
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. KJV

Romans 13
Be Subject to Government
1 Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.
2 Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. NAS

Romans 13
Submission to the Authorities
1Everyone 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. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. NIV

Daniel 2
21 "It is He who changes the times and the epochs;
He removes kings and establishes kings;
He gives wisdom to wise men
And knowledge to men of understanding.

John 19
11 Jesus answered, "You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above; for this reason he who delivered Me to you has the greater sin."

Job 12
18 "He loosens the bond of kings
And binds their loins with a girdle.

Daniel 4
17 "This sentence is by the decree of the angelic watchers
And the decision is a command of the holy ones,
In order that the living may know
That the Most High is ruler over the realm of mankind,
And bestows it on whom He wishes
And sets over it the lowliest of men."
32 and you will be driven away from mankind, and your dwelling place will be with the beasts of the field. You will be given grass to eat like cattle, and seven periods of time will pass over you until you recognize that the Most High is ruler over the realm of mankind and bestows it on whomever He wishes.'

This is pretty unambiguous: There is no authority except that which God has established� And it has been that way with government from the first day God�s people rebelled against God and chose for themselves their first monarchy headed by Saul, then followed by King David. God was in control of both of those selections and has �established� every government in the world since. God is imbued with Omnipotence, Omnipresence, and Omniscience. These attributes represent the nature of God concerning His relation to his creation. Creation is separate from God, but not independent of Him. Man may not establish a government against God�s sovereignty. It can not be done; �freewill� or not. From the beginning when man first rejected God by wanting to install his own government (kings) - no king was ever crowned against the sovereignty of God. Although man chose kings over judges, God chose the king. I am reminded of the example of the grumbling Israelites with Moses in the desert, complaining about their single dietary food of manna. God said, �you want quail � you will get quail! - Choke on it.� Man has choked on more than a few rulers.

~ ~ ~ �The very fact GWB may sign bills banning brain suction abortion is meaningless, on the right hand, if his left hand is doing what is evil in the sight of the Lord��

Meaningless? You are being rhetorical, or course. Banning ANY type of abortion is not meaningless.

��Of course, doing what is right; calling on the name of the Lord; proclaiming "Thus sayeth the Lord," would either get him killed or become a one term wonder like is daddy.�

Doesn�t that argument tend to support the fact that God does �ordain government� afterall? (eg.: to establish government)

Even though it would be a flawed argument as presented since it tends to suggest there is some sort of a Godly merit system. Good, two terms. Bad, one term. Real bad, bullets. There exists no Biblical doctrine to consistently support a position that Bush might be serving either a one or two term-er based on Bush�s goodness or accumulated evil. The term/term�s duration will ultimately NOT depend on Bush�s goodness OR his evil but, rather, on the Will, Sovereignty and Omnipotence of God alone. Perhaps it was another rhetorical comment. The Word teaches that Bush�s term in office will have nothing to do with his saying: "Thus sayeth the Lord." To illustrate the theme of this point; look at two term-er Clinton with regard to that hypothesis. He was one of the most fouled and debauched figures in American Politics ever to taint the Oval Office; yet how many terms did Clinton serve? Was he re-elected for his pleasing aroma to a Holy God? My observation (and it is just a guess) was that Clinton was what the sinful American populace as a whole deserved. He reflected society's sin.

Jesus said:
�I tell you the truth: Among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist;��. Matthew 11:11

And yet John the Baptist was allowed to be beheaded by Herod. My considered guess is that Bush will turn on Israel at some juncture and THAT event will spell disastrous results for America and perhaps Bush over and above other considerations.

~ ~ ~ What will Russia do when they finally realize the sole purpose for the USA to attack Iraq and Saddam, is oil and NOT terrorism.
The motivating factor, of course, is the Bush/Cheney connection to oil and energy companies. They have made millions through these companies. If GWB is assassinated by the Illuminati, we then get Cheney. Cheney has been called by some "the most wicked man in America."

Since when has Russia, or their former USSR ever needed an excuse to act unilaterally? Perhaps that is connected to the "hook" in Ezekiel (?) - Besides, what about this: doesn�t the black helicopter crowd consider Bush to be �Illuminati.�? So, let me see if I have this correct; the Illuminati supposedly procures Bush�s election to the Oval office through all their dirty dealings, control, and power, having successfully planted Bush in office, they THEN have him picked off to be replaced by another Illuminati member with a bad ticker? Doo-do, Doo-do, doo-do.

�The motivating factor, of course, is the Bush/Cheney connection to oil and energy companies.�
Environmentalists made the same types of argument more than 20 years ago about the trans-Alaska oil pipeline and drilling in the small area that now produces oil near Prudhoe Bay. If Bush and Chaney really were going into Iraq for the sole reason of taking control of oil, why not go after Venezuela instead, or push for the opening of the Alaska oil reserve in our own camp instead?

Sometimes a person�s personal dislike for Bush colors their perception regarding him and his activities and seems to evidence itself in ad hominum remarks that hurt their logic more than it detracts from the person it targets.

Bottom line - I say, Horse Pucky! Speaking of which, has anyone ever tried to run THEIR transportation (car, plane, bus) or home heating on horse pucky fuel? Or, has anyone tried to make their plastics and hospital supplies with horse manure? Or pharmaceuticals, electricity, chemicals, heating or lubricants with horse manure? Consider, however, that even if it were valid, natural resources have been a primary reason among factions through out the ages for engaging in war.

BTW, So what if they made millions from oil? Seems like an irrelevant attack upon a person to deflect the argument from the facts and reasons. What does their wealth have to do with it? All of these arguments are, unfortunately also in the left�s playbook. Sorry, who ever this source is will have to punch someone else�s dance card. I'm sitting this dance out based on my information. Sorry my friend.

The United States rightly decided it could not permit potentially hostile small powers to acquire such weapons as those we know Iraq has. Saddam Hussein already has chemical and biological weapons and is nearing nuclear capability as well. Mr. Bush thus has two choices: To try to force North Korea to back down, and thereby give Saddam precious months or years to become a nuclear power in his own right, or block Saddam first and then deal with North Korea. He prudently chose the latter course in my opinion.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]