Should we teach others to rebel against Standards?

[Wilsonwas]

Originally Posted by jediwill83

So its the legality or illegality of a substance that makes it a sin to use?

Ok, now we are into the territory I find interesting.

Legal or Illegal are man made laws, sin may be against man, or God, but is it sin simply because its not legal.

I would venture some in churches have "shared" prescription stuff with brothers or sisters in the church.
This is clearly illegal as these items are supposed to ve obtained by writ only from a script provided by a licenced person, and dispensed by another licensed person. Not shared or sold in the street. Is this then sin or compasion on a less fortunate one....

All acts of illegality are not sin, nor are all legal things Godly.

[jediwill83]

Originally Posted by Wilsonwas

Ok, now we are into the territory I find interesting.

Legal or Illegal are man made laws, sin may be against man, or God, but is it sin simply because its not legal.

I would venture some in churches have "shared" prescription stuff with brothers or sisters in the church.
This is clearly illegal as these items are supposed to ve obtained by writ only from a script provided by a licenced person, and dispensed by another licensed person. Not shared or sold in the street. Is this then sin or compasion on a less fortunate one....

All acts of illegality are not sin, nor are all legal things Godly.

I agree.

[1ofthechosen]

Originally Posted by Wilsonwas

Ok, now we are into the territory I find interesting.

Legal or Illegal are man made laws, sin may be against man, or God, bur is it sin simply because its not legal.

I would venture some in churches have "shared" prescription stuff with brothers or sisters in the church.
This is clearly illegal as these items are supposed to ve obtained by writ only from a script provided by a licenced person, and dispensed by another licensed person. Not shared or sold in tge street. Is this then sin or compasion on a less fortunate one....

All acts of illegality are not sin, nor are all legal things Godly.

So if I'm on Fetanyl patches, and you have a back ache that would be compassion to give you one? Just because people in the church have done it, doesn't make It right.


So man made law or not what are you going to do with this Romans 13:1-2 "Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. [2] Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves." As long as the man made law doesn't contradict the law of God scripture shows you are bound to it, it even says you bring judgement on yourself for breaking it.

I will agree everything illegal isn't sin, but it is sin to rebel against it. And everything legal isn't Godly neither could everything be! Not in a fallen world.

[Wilsonwas]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

So if I'm on Fetanyl patches, and you have a back ache that would be compassion to give you one? Just because people in the church have done it, doesn't make It right.


So man made law or not what are you going to do with this Romans 13:1-2 "Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. [2] Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves." As long as the man made law doesn't contradict the law of God scripture shows you are bound to it, it even says you bring judgement on yourself for breaking it.

I will agree everything illegal isn't sin, but it is sin to rebel against it. And everything legal isn't Godly neither could everything be! Not in a fallen world.

So souls behind what once was the iron curtain of Soviet control, that met, against the law, were rebellious? Rebellion is the sin of witchcraft, so obviously these were terrible people that should have turned on their fellows as following the law of the land equates to following the law of Christ?
I do not feel any law above the natural law that is found in the ten commandments is valid law. Thus those in the church that break these laws are by definition law breakers, but that does not make it sin, nor rebellion against God.

Seems very convenient that US law as often cited and encouraged by Republicans is a big deal to many conservative Christians including those that also love "standards" mostly that include 1950s values. Yet Champion Mrs. Davis for not handing marriage licences to gays, which was a directly rebeliious act. -
Before anyone then claims that this is somehow a statement supporting gay marriage, let me state that I can be for the rights of someone to do something, under the law of the land, that I disagree with, or even find sinful, without condoning the sin itself. I can also state that it would seem sin by scriptural references, thus I dont condone gay marriage in the church. This is strictly a government question. I can also say that equivocating non-biblical standards to sin, does not elevate disagreement with them to rebellion to bring us back to a Christian discussion.
In the bit I quoted the words "As long as the manmade law does not contradict the law of god"....do not appear in the scripture quoted...it rather simply states that all authority is placed in that position by God, thus if you do not like law that allows abortion, your protest is rebellion....using this verse alone.

Yet the story of the three Hebrews and a fiery furnace states exactly the opposite and the actions of Shadrach, Meschak, and Abendego, were in facr out-right rebellion, which give credence to the Jefferson statement "that rebellion against tyrants, is obedience to God.

The problem is that many Christians have become tyranical and wish to have their convictions converted to the law of the land. As a Libertarian I abhor all tyrants, no matter if they are of the right or left wing. I also tend to think this is a more Christian view, as the right of self determination is sacrosanct to choosing to follow to ones own salvation. There ouggt not to be laws of man that force this, or that force from this, so logically the less law on the books the less the liklihood of doibg either by authority of man.

[1ofthechosen]

Originally Posted by Wilsonwas

So souls behind what once was the iron curtain of Soviet control, that met, against the law, were rebellious? Rebellion is the sin of witchcraft, so obviously these were terrible people that should have turned on their fellows as following the law of the land equates to following the law of Christ?
I do not feel any law above the natural law that is found in the ten commandments is valid law. Thus those in the church that break these laws are by definition law breakers, but that does not make it sin, nor rebellion against God.

Seems very convenient that US law as often cited and encouraged by Republicans is a big deal to many conservative Christians including those that also love "standards" mostly that include 1950s values. Yet Champion Mrs. Davis for not handing marriage licences to gays, which was a directly rebeliious act. -
Before anyone then claims that this is somehow a statement supporting gay marriage, let me state that I can be for the rights of someone to do something, under the law of the land, that I disagree with, or even find sinful, without condoning the sin itself. I can also state that it would seem sin by scriptural references, thus I dont condone gay marriage in the church. This is strictly a government question. I can also say that equivocating non-biblical standards to sin, does not elevate disagreement with them to rebellion to bring us back to a Christian discussion.
In the bit I quoted the words "As long as the manmade law does not contradict the law of god"....do not appear in the scripture quoted...it rather simply states that all authority is placed in that position by God, thus if you do not like law that allows abortion, your protest is rebellion....using this verse alone.

Yet the story of the three Hebrews and a fiery furnace states exactly the opposite and the actions of Shadrach, Meschak, and Abendego, were in facr out-right rebellion, which give credence to the Jefferson statement "that rebellion against tyrants, is obedience to God.

The problem is that many Christians have become tyranical and wish to have their convictions converted to the law of the land. As a Libertarian I abhor all tyrants, no matter if they are of the right or left wing. I also tend to think this is a more Christian view, as the right of self determination is sacrosanct to choosing to follow to ones own salvation. There ouggt not to be laws of man that force this, or that force from this, so logically the less law on the books the less the liklihood of doibg either by authority of man.

You are going to all these extremes trying to justify this reasoning. But I said "As long as the man made law doesn't contradict the law of God scripture shows you are bound to it, it even says you bring judgement on yourself for breaking it." Per Romans 13:1-2 point blank! So that debunks all the things you just threw out. The Kind Davis thing, the 3 Hebrew, boys, and the Berlin Wall.

Anything that's against the law of God doesn't matter what man says. In those cases it doesn't matter what man says. But what you are talking about doesn't fall under that. In that case rebellion would be as the sin of witchcraft as you said.

[Wilsonwas]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

You are going to all these extremes trying to justify this reasoning. But I said "As long as the man made law doesn't contradict the law of God scripture shows you are bound to it, it even says you bring judgement on yourself for breaking it." Per Romans 13:1-2 point blank! So that debunks all the things you just threw out. The Kind Davis thing, the 3 Hebrew, boys, and the Berlin Wall.

Anything that's against the law of God doesn't matter what man says. In those cases it doesn't matter what man says. But what you are talking about doesn't fall under that. In that case rebellion would be as the sin of witchcraft as you said.

The scripture from Romans you quoted does not contain an exclusion for the laws of god. You have to be pulling that from somewhere else. Therefore the extreams I covered would all still count. You need more scripture to support your words. My bet is that more scripture will point out the error that some church folk use to accuse brothers and sisters of rebellion when they cross man written rules over beards, ties, dresses, etc.

[Wilsonwas]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

You are going to all these extremes trying to justify this reasoning. But I said "As long as the man made law doesn't contradict the law of God scripture shows you are bound to it, it even says you bring judgement on yourself for breaking it." Per Romans 13:1-2 point blank! So that debunks all the things you just threw out. The Kind Davis thing, the 3 Hebrew, boys, and the Berlin Wall.

Anything that's against the law of God doesn't matter what man says. In those cases it doesn't matter what man says. But what you are talking about doesn't fall under that. In that case rebellion would be as the sin of witchcraft as you said.

Im not the only person that argues your use of this scripture in the manner you used it.

http://www.gotquestions.org/American...Romans-13.html

Like the Pharasees ultra-cons, and like Publicans the left, add laws to the books to satisfy their OWN version of right and wrong. If a law contradicted any of the 10 commandments, it is not to be obeyed and one would be in keeping with many bible heros to stand up to it. I think we agree there.
However, suppose a UPCI member pastor is president. He orders all to be in complience with the doctrines of holiness standards, and declares the only legal religion to be in line with the UPCI. Great for us, A devout Catholic may rise up in rebellion for the same excuse you give and would be justified by his religious view.
This is why I prefer that gooberment be kept far from religions and religions far from gooberment.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Wilsonwas

Im not the only person that argues your use of this scripture in the manner you used it.

http://www.gotquestions.org/American...Romans-13.html

Like the Pharasees ultra-cons, and like Publicans the left, add laws to the books to satisfy their OWN version of right and wrong. If a law contradicted any of the 10 commandments, it is not to be obeyed and one would be in keeping with many bible heros to stand up to it. I think we agree there.
However, suppose a UPCI member pastor is president. He orders all to be in complience with the doctrines of holiness standards, and declares the only legal religion to be in line with the UPCI. Great for us, A devout Catholic may rise up in rebellion for the same excuse you give and would be justified by his religious view.
This is why I prefer that gooberment be kept far from religions and religions far from gooberment.

Romans 13 teaches that civil government is accountable to God and has a moral obligation to punish evil and protect/reward good.

So-called "religion-neutral government" is a lie, it is actually "humanist government" where humanism becomes the state religion. Other religions are tolerated but only as long as they support the state religion, aka "public policy" which is determined by humanists and enforced by guys with guns and badges. The practical result is the society we see right now, where perverts and baby butcherers are protected and Christians, conservatives, and everyone else not on Team Left are marginalized, penalized, and (in the final phase of humanism) exterminated.

Which is just the modern day evolution of Imperial Roman policy of religio licit.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Romans 13 teaches that civil government is accountable to God and has a moral obligation to punish evil and protect/reward good.

So-called "religion-neutral government" is a lie, it is actually "humanist government" where humanism becomes the state religion. Other religions are tolerated but only as long as they support the state religion, aka "public policy" which is determined by humanists and enforced by guys with guns and badges. The practical result is the society we see right now, where perverts and baby butcherers are protected and Christians, conservatives, and everyone else not on Team Left are marginalized, penalized, and (in the final phase of humanism) exterminated.

Which is just the modern day evolution of Imperial Roman policy of religio licit.

All Romans 13 teaches is that the Roman government (human government itself) is ordained of God, to punish evil and keep some measure of peace. Therefore, we should submit and pay taxes.

Paul doesn't tell Christians to involve themselves in the Roman government. Paul doesn't tell Christians to revolt against the Roman government to set up a "Christian government" either.

We submit, pay taxes, and live peaceably in society. In it, but not of it. And, we see it demonstrated that when edict or law of human government contradicts the Gospel, the Apostles obeyed God rather than human government, willingly suffering death if necessary.

This is an admonishment against violent or criminal revolt, against breaking law and bringing reproach, not a directive to enshrine some half-baked theocracy.

The desire for power of the root of all heresy.

[1ofthechosen]

Originally Posted by Wilsonwas

Im not the only person that argues your use of this scripture in the manner you used it.

http://www.gotquestions.org/American...Romans-13.html

Like the Pharasees ultra-cons, and like Publicans the left, add laws to the books to satisfy their OWN version of right and wrong. If a law contradicted any of the 10 commandments, it is not to be obeyed and one would be in keeping with many bible heros to stand up to it. I think we agree there.
However, suppose a UPCI member pastor is president. He orders all to be in complience with the doctrines of holiness standards, and declares the only legal religion to be in line with the UPCI. Great for us, A devout Catholic may rise up in rebellion for the same excuse you give and would be justified by his religious view.
This is why I prefer that gooberment be kept far from religions and religions far from gooberment.

We could suppose a lot of things. But the simple fact is follow the law of the land and don't be found as a transgressor. But if the law is contrary to the ordinances of God don't do it. You don't like standards, don't follow them. Find a church that doesn't enforce them they are everywhere! If it doesn't come from your heart you might as well not do it anyway, because in the end your only going to do whats in your heart anyway.

Got questions.org is a seventh day adventist website. That puts them in the likes of Ellen G. White and Dave Koresh, so that should say enough.

And now Ultra-cons are Pharasees huh? Well I guess the liberals would be the Saducees then huh? Dont believe fat meat is greasy, don't believe in deliverance from sin, the power of God, or anything else. Nothing but sloppy agape.. "If your belief is not able to transform you, it's not the true gospel!" Simple and plain!