Originally posted by FMFPray for the answers you so desperately look for as I can't seem to help you here.
No you haven't. You have offered what you call "info". But when asked to explain how you justify personally extrapolating what you do from this "info", and justify its moral underpinning, as opposed to simply establishing that the "info" is written somewhere, you skip straight to saying you have 'already explained it'.
Originally posted by galveston75You offering answers to my point blank and on-topic questions about your moral justification for your actions is surely the best way for me to get the answers I am looking for about your moral justification for your actions.
Pray for the answers you so desperately look for as I can't seem to help you here.
Originally posted by FMFPray for the answers you so desperately look for as I can't seem to help you here.
You offering answers to my point blank and on-topic questions about your moral justification for your actions is surely the best way for me to get the answers I am looking for about your moral justification for your actions.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI tried to post verses from the Holy Bible in response to this post to educate you. However, there is something in one or more verses that is deemed inappropriate, so I guess part of the Holy Bible is being censored here.
not that I am aware of no but I am sure you will think of some imaginary hypothetical scene.
Originally posted by RJHindsHummm. It's a little hypocritical for you to condemn the JW's for listening to what a group of men might say to us as an organization with reguards to the Bible's teachings but yet you are doing the same here in quoting what this gentleman is saying which is nothing more then his own thoughts. But I guess that's not important to you.
Perhaps this article will give you understanding without quoting the Holy Bible.
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2108
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/a/oathofenlist.htm
I was just looking over this oath that you no doubt took with your service and I notice that you were under direct command from the president.
So if the president were to command you to drop bombs on another country like as has happened even reciently, you would do that correct?
What do you think would be God's view when innocent lives were taken which usually happens? Does he view it as "oh well, they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, too bad" or would he view that as murder as the families usually do of those victims?
If it is murder, who caused those vitims to die?
To me, the pacifist position is easier to understand. While I may not fully agree with the "no-kill" position and/or not agree there is full internal logic consistency in such a position, I can still see it and even respect it. In contrast, the idea that it is a sin to be a leader in the general community among all (including the secular and various religions and superstitions) seems odd.
Maybe related to a cultish type instruction of not to associate with non-believers. I know growing up as a Southern Baptist, we were taught not to associate with unbelievers. 2-Corinthians-6:14-18 (do not be unequally yolked with unbelievers). My church accepted that contact with unbelievers was ok to witness to them but not fraternize with them.
By the way, the Baptist preacher I studied scripture with when I was age 14, would not marry a white with a black, as he stretched the scripture to say such a couple was unequally yolked. Of course, we did not have anybody of color in our congregation.
A few short years later I did get married in that church (to a white girl). The new preacher told my soon-to-be wife in the pre-marriage counseling that while we should strive to agree and be 50-50 in our marriage, that if there ever was a disagreement that we could not resolve, then it was the husband who made the decision.
We were always clearly taught, and my parents and grandparents strongly believed, that the man (husband) was head of the household. Of course, it was also argued that the husband had to earn such a position, yet in reality it was more of a default position that was difficult for the man to lose. Plus, for the most part, it appeared to me at a young age, that women were comfortable with a subservient role, yet I am sure I didn't see it all.
At big family get-togethers during the holidays, the men and teenage boys would sit down first to eat (be served by the women), and when we were done eating, would get up and go into the living room to watch football, and then the women would sit down and eat (and clean up afterward).
Originally posted by moon1969"At big family get-togethers during the holidays, the men and teenage boys would sit down first to eat (be served by the women), and when we were done eating, would get up and go into the living room to watch football, and then the women would sit down and eat (and clean up afterward)."
A few short years later I did get married in that church (to a white girl). The new preacher told my soon-to-be wife in the pre-marriage counseling that while we should strive to agree and be 50-50 in our marriage, that if there ever was a disagreement that we could not resolve, then it was the husband who made the decision.
We were always clearly tau ...[text shortened]... ing room to watch football, and then the women would sit down and eat (and clean up afterward).
Lol, yes I remember that happening too with the older folks in my family. I guess it was a custom back then for the "women folk" to eat after the men did. The only reason I could figure out for that as a kid was the men were usually in a hurry to get back out to the farm or ranch work that was waiting but I'm sure there was more to it. Like men talk that women weren't supposed to hear.
Originally posted by galveston75You still out there RJH?
Hummm. It's a little hypocritical for you to condemn the JW's for listening to what a group of men might say to us as an organization with reguards to the Bible's teachings but yet you are doing the same here in quoting what this gentleman is saying which is nothing more then his own thoughts. But I guess that's not important to you.
http://usmilit ...[text shortened]... families usually do of those victims?
If it is murder, who caused those vitims to die?
Originally posted by galveston75Every 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. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.
Hummm. It's a little hypocritical for you to condemn the JW's for listening to what a group of men might say to us as an organization with reguards to the Bible's teachings but yet you are doing the same here in quoting what this gentleman is saying which is nothing more then his own thoughts. But I guess that's not important to you.
http://usmilit ...[text shortened]... families usually do of those victims?
If it is murder, who caused those vitims to die?
(Romans 13:1-7 NASB)
In them the king granted the Jews who were in each and every city the right to assemble and to defend their lives, to destroy, to kill and to annihilate the entire army of any people or province which might attack them, including children and women, and to plunder their spoil,
(Esther 8:11 NASB)
Originally posted by moon1969Did we British not teach you that its ladies before gentlemen? That a man stands when a
A few short years later I did get married in that church (to a white girl). The new preacher told my soon-to-be wife in the pre-marriage counseling that while we should strive to agree and be 50-50 in our marriage, that if there ever was a disagreement that we could not resolve, then it was the husband who made the decision.
We were always clearly tau ing room to watch football, and then the women would sit down and eat (and clean up afterward).
lady enters the room and confers his place for her convenience? That he must walk on
the outside of the side walk to protect her from splashes of carriages and vehicles etc
etc where have we went wrong? I dunno! 😛
Originally posted by RJHindsWell then you have an issue don't you? The Bible says not to kill and Jesus said to turn the other cheek.
[b]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. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior ...[text shortened]... ttack them[/b], including children and women, and to plunder their spoil,
(Esther 8:11 NASB)[/b]
I totally understand all that means as well as the scriptures you "only see" because that's in your heart to only see that and not able to see what these scriptures really mean.
You kill whoever you see fit to fill your need and we will not kill.
Lets see how God views these two different stands in the end. Deal?