Politics

[skydiver386]

You are quite correct that the U.S. Constitution places limits on the government and not citizens.

However the separation of church and state doesn't just come from that letter. If flows into the multitude of cases interpreting the Establishment Clause and Article VI, as well as the many Federal and State RFRA's out there and more recent internal guidance from the Office of Personnel Management (yes I know they blow like the wind, but it is relevant).

I'm aware.

My point was that we have a member that claims to poses a PHD in History, yet is consistently wrong on many historical facts. I value source documents far more than I value his opinion.

 

[RLD]

I'm aware.

My point was that we have a member that claims to poses a PHD in History, yet is consistently wrong on many historical facts. I value source documents far more than I value his opinion.

I must have missed that. I have a humble B.A.hons in history. Who is our Phd? I wonder what his thesis was on.

 

[AJ Peacock]

That’s the argument I’ve always heard but I can’t reconcile Romans 13, let alone the entire New Testament, with that argument.

I found https://www.gotquestions.org/American-Revolution-Romans-13.html

Basically I think it comes down to the colonies acting in self defense, since they did not fire the first volley. The following excerpt is the clearest rational from my perspective.

3) The colonists saw the war as a defensive action, not as an offensive war. And it is true that, in 1775 and 1776, the Americans had presented the king with formal appeals for reconciliation. These peaceful pleas were met with armed military force and several violations of British Common Law and the English Bill of Rights. In 1770, the British fired upon unarmed citizens in the Boston Massacre. At Lexington, the command was “Don’t fire unless fired upon.” The colonists, therefore, saw themselves as defending themselves after the conflict had been initiated by the British.

4) The colonists read 1 Peter 2:13, “Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority . . .,” and saw the phrase “for the Lord’s sake” as a condition for obedience. The reasoning ran thus: if the authority was unrighteous and passed unrighteous laws, then following them could not be a righteous thing. In other words, one cannot obey a wicked law “for the Lord’s sake.”

AJ

 

[skydiver386]

I must have missed that. I have a humble B.A.hons in history. Who is our Phd? I wonder what his thesis was on.

Ontario Hunter AKA Ontario Karen AKA Booger.

 

[Wishfulthinker580]

I found https://www.gotquestions.org/American-Revolution-Romans-13.html

Basically I think it comes down to the colonies acting in self defense, since they did not fire the first volley. The following excerpt is the clearest rational from my perspective.

3) The colonists saw the war as a defensive action, not as an offensive war. And it is true that, in 1775 and 1776, the Americans had presented the king with formal appeals for reconciliation. These peaceful pleas were met with armed military force and several violations of British Common Law and the English Bill of Rights. In 1770, the British fired upon unarmed citizens in the Boston Massacre. At Lexington, the command was “Don’t fire unless fired upon.” The colonists, therefore, saw themselves as defending themselves after the conflict had been initiated by the British.

4) The colonists read 1 Peter 2:13, “Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority . . .,” and saw the phrase “for the Lord’s sake” as a condition for obedience. The reasoning ran thus: if the authority was unrighteous and passed unrighteous laws, then following them could not be a righteous thing. In other words, one cannot obey a wicked law “for the Lord’s sake.”

AJ

I definitely get the argument. I just don’t see Scriptural precedent for it. Romans 13 isn’t conditional. It doesn’t say “unless the authority is tyrannical” for instance. The only place we see disobeying authority as justified in the New Testament is in the matter of obeying God over men and that’s on the matter of cut and dry things such as sharing the Gospel or being commanded to sin in some way. Jesus Himself said if believers are under persecution in one city they should flee to another. I don’t think taxes etc fall in that category. I definitely believe in defensive war and just war, after all Ecclesiastes says there’s a time for everything.

I wouldn’t have liked the treatment anymore than the next guy but if you read the complaints in the Declaration of Independence nothing jumps out at me as justification, Scripturally speaking.

 

[AJ Peacock]

I definitely get the argument. I just don’t see Scriptural precedent for it. Romans 13 isn’t conditional. It doesn’t say “unless the authority is tyrannical” for instance. The only place we see disobeying authority as justified in the New Testament is in the matter of obeying God over men and that’s on the matter of cut and dry things such as sharing the Gospel or being commanded to sin in some way. Jesus Himself said if believers are under persecution in one city they should flee to another. I don’t think taxes etc fall in that category. I definitely believe in defensive war and just war, after all Ecclesiastes says there’s a time for everything.

I wouldn’t have liked the treatment anymore than the next guy but if you read the complaints in the Declaration of Independence nothing jumps out at me as justification, Scripturally speaking.

I get your perspective. At what point (actions by an unjust government) would you believe a Christian is just in opposing his government? If Government murdered your family under a new punitive law, would Romans 13 still apply?

AJ

 

[Boyd Brooks]

I'm aware.

My point was that we have a member that claims to poses a PHD in History, yet is consistently wrong on many historical facts. I value source documents far more than I value his opinion.

If you can’t post a picture in your cap and gown, with the scroll in your hand as well as the Dean’s hand, I call bullshit.
It seems the harder some try convince others that their IQ is greater than their age, the more it seems closer to their shoe size.
Love the entertainment value, and the fact that one MAN can live rent free in so many heads.

 

[Wishfulthinker580]

I get your perspective. At what point (actions by an unjust government) would you believe a Christian is just in opposing his government? If Government murdered your family under a new punitive law, would Romans 13 still apply?

AJ

For me, no. Does that sound hypocritical? Maybe. If it comes to protecting family (or myself so I can protect and provide for my family), or the innocent in general, then I think opposition is justified. I’d just be very careful about saying it’s biblical to take up arms against your own government and let God be the judge in the end. I don’t see anything prior to the Revolution reaching that level.

The tough pill to swallow, biblically speaking, is that you are supposed to endure persecution happily, even to the point of martyrdom. Flee from it? Sure, but ultimately endure.

 

[SaintPanzer]

I mean, they were literally saying "yes, this is not normal, and if we're going to do this, it must be justified.

They then went on to list the issues, to include saying they were petitioning the king, and he was not listening, and instead Parliament was passing other laws in his name.

"assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them:"

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, "

"We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, "

"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

So yeah, they knew the scripture, and considered themselves as living within it.

Go read the "divine Providence" and "Supreme Judge of the world" part again. Read it for comprehension this time.

 

[K-man]

Remind me again, what the laws of supply and demand say about what happens when supply is fixed but demand still increases?

I’m not sure how you say the supply is fixed? What’s preventing you from starting a construction business, obtaining permits from every institution known to mankind, then putting a pencil to costs and discovering whether you can build a 2 bedroom one bath home and sell it for a profit? Supply is not fixed just no motivation/profit in building lower cost housing. I should know, I’ve built over 500 homes in the last 30 years, almost all of them under $200 thousand. 1500 to 2100 sq ft.

 

[Wishfulthinker580]

I mean, they were literally saying "yes, this is not normal, and if we're going to do this, it must be justified.

They then went on to list the issues, to include saying they were petitioning the king, and he was not listening, and instead Parliament was passing other laws in his name.

"assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them:"

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, "

"We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, "

"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

So yeah, they knew the scripture, and considered themselves as living within it.

Go read the "divine Providence" and "Supreme Judge of the world" part again. Read it for comprehension this time.

They had the opinion they were doing the right thing. I respect that. Just don’t agree with it. Historically speaking, people have endured far worse..

People can say we rely on divine providence and appeal to God all they want. That doesn’t mean they’re correct.

I’ve still yet to see an argument backed up with Scripture..

 

[AJ Peacock]

They had the opinion they were doing the right thing. I respect that. Just don’t agree with it. Historically speaking, people have endured far worse..

People can say we rely on divine providence and appeal to God all they want. That doesn’t mean they’re correct.

I’ve still yet to see an argument backed up with Scripture..

I'm NOT a PHD, nor any other kind of Historian (just wanted to be clear!).

Here is an idea,
1) The pilgrims came to America to avoid religious persecution. I assume this would not be counter to Romans 13.
2) Then forward a couple generations and the government they fled from is again applying unwanted control over them.
3) If a government is allowed to spread and control (colonization) over new peoples, can't the peoples fight back? Are these colonizers 'valid' governments under Romans 13?

Sorry for the beer napkin level ideas.

AJ

 

[Killingtime]

Yes, I have lived in Coronado, Ca. And Mare Island, Ca and Treasure Island Ca.

Every issue and dilemma ever solved had naysayers, skeptics and critics.

Yes it will be hard. Yes it will be expensive. But nowhere nearly as expensive or the risk to the environment than current oil and gas pipelines running everywhere underground, north south east and west. And yes those cross mountains.

Larger, more complex oil pipelines run east and west through Canada and the U.S.

The amount of water being dumped in the east right now would get the west through a month of water use. Use only overflow water. It’s doable.

Water is even more critical than oil and electricity.

There’s a documentary that is on YouTube of the guy who made 5 hr energy drinks. He created a company of engineers with the sole purpose of inventing things that would improve people’s lives. They made a machine the removed salt from sea water and ionized the water so it could be used for crops and drank. He had an idea of outfitting tankers up and down the cost lines and pumping water to the shores. I wonder why no one has considered doing it. It’s a pretty cool idea

 

[Killingtime]

Man

Well so like many of us have done. Move.

https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-search/North-Carolina/price-na-100000?cid=sem_7219905398_20044590641_162375872371_787568724216:G:s&s_kwcid=AL!15120!3!787568724216!!!g!!&gclsrc=aw.ds&sitelink=&gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=20044590641&gbraid=0AAAAAD6NRB_dk_ba9lPsaDIdvGkZcKl0c&gclid=Cj0KCQjwkYLPBhC3ARIsAIyHi3TUsiQzBXvWslSMeE8WooOXb44rRDJXpN8P0Ac5kdD2pDfKBAy9MFcaAoNqEALw_wcB

with the ability for people to work online or heck any number of startups blue collar businesses you could have a good life in a place like that making under 50k a year

 

[Brent in Az]

The Marxist Street Journal claims that Trump said Iran is willing to turn over it's Uranium.

Anyone hear anything on that?

WSJ has a pay wall so I only saw the first part of the article.
They better not allow them to turn it over to Russia or China.

 

[Killingtime]

D

I’ve yet to see anyone make a convincing biblical argument justifying the American Revolution. The context of Aaron’s post was in response to my post about reading Romans chapter

Am I mistaken that while Roman 13 says to submit to rule of law the submission is conditional .. meaning if the rule of law is against what the lord teaches then we do not have to submit

 

[mdwest]

The Marxist Street Journal claims that Trump said Iran is willing to turn over it's Uranium.

Anyone hear anything on that?

WSJ has a pay wall so I only saw the first part of the article.
They better not allow them to turn it over to Russia or China.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2044844414497943867

Trump interview where he says they’ve agreed…

No confirmation from Iran as to whether or not they concur..

 

[Altitude sickness]

The Pakistanis have been talking to Iran in our stead this week. It’s even more credible coming through that channel.

The liberals are not going to be happy.

 

[Killingtime]

I definitely get the argument. I just don’t see Scriptural precedent for it. Romans 13 isn’t conditional. It doesn’t say “unless the authority is tyrannical” for instance. The only place we see disobeying authority as justified in the New Testament is in the matter of obeying God over men and that’s on the matter of cut and dry things such as sharing the Gospel or being commanded to sin in some way. Jesus Himself said if believers are under persecution in one city they should flee to another. I don’t think taxes etc fall in that category. I definitely believe in defensive war and just war, after all Ecclesiastes says there’s a time for everything.

I wouldn’t have liked the treatment anymore than the next guy but if you read the complaints in the Declaration of Independence nothing jumps out at me as justification, Scripturally speaking.

In the gospels Jesus constantly criticized, mocked and even resorted to violence against the Pharisees and sadducees who were the law for the Jewish people. Even though they lived under Rome the Jewish law took precedent to Jewish people and when that law was twisted against what god wanted Jesus let them know.

 

[Russ16]

A friend used to live in a really nice neighborhood in Houston (based on house sizes, build quality, etc). No HOA. His next door neighbor apparently had multiple grown children move in with them. Possibly others as well because they had so many cars the street was always crowded. And he frequlently had to stop someone from blocking or even parking in his driveway.

My HOA does not allow anyone to continuously park in the street on an overnight basis, so not all bad. No issues with someone visiting, or even a travel trailer if short term.

But Karen complaining to the HOA if I walk my dog without a leash is aggravating.

What’s wrong with parking on the street?