Having A Right To Carry Does Not Make You A LEO

[BluesStringer]

Teachings | Rocky Mountain Calvary (2009 Jul 19 (Sun) - Romans 13:1 - 13:14 - Eric Cartier)

If you are interested here is a link to a teaching on Romans 13 from Rocky Mountain Calvary (my home church)

Thanks, but my questions don't derive from a lack of available analysis on your (or your pastor's) understanding of Romans 13. That said, even your pastor acknowledges that the passage has its limitations. I think you alluded to it earlier, but in short, if authorities directives go against God, we are to obey God and not the authorities. If this government can't legitimately be tagged as one that has abandoned God, then I have to question the ability to understand what the Bible says of anyone who would assert such. We're approaching 60 million murdered babies since Roe was decided in '73. Every day we see another example of government trying to subvert our freedom to worship to its scrutiny and authority. Our pre-teen girls can get abortions without parental consent, or in some cases without even notification. This government runs on lies, treachery and debauchery. Satan is the prince of this world, and secular government serves him! How can Satan's work be *of* God? It is our duty to resist it as a manifestation of obeying God, not as a violation of Romans 13!

As near as I can tell, your pastor is reading from the New International Version of the Bible. Where it refers to rebelling against the authorities, it says that those who do so, "...will bring judgment on themselves." Well, duh, everything we do will bring judgement upon each and every one of us, whether the action be judged righteous or sinful and unrepentant.

The King James Version says it differently though. First, it uses the words "higher powers" and "power" where the NIV uses "governing authorities" and "authorities," and 13:2 says, "[SUP]2 [/SUP]Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation."

Damnation seems a bit more severe to me than judgment. Damnation means that anyone who resists the power referred to there is going to Hell, period. "Power" seems much more "of" God than does "governing authority" to me. "Governing" appears to be talking about civil governance, while "resisteth the ordinance of God" seems to be the power that we are not to resist lest we be damned to Hell.

I am not saying I "like" the KJV more than I "like" the NIV. They may both be mangled by human interpretation to one degree or another. My point is that I am not convinced that Romans 13 is referencing civil authority at all. There is no "loophole" to escape the damnation of resisting the authority that your pastor cited out of the NIV. That would mean that smuggling Bibles into India or China or North Korea would damn a Bible-believing Christian to Hell for violating the civil law that forbids proselytizing or any type of religious writings in those countries. That means that protesting at abortion clinics is a sin against God. You "resisteth" and you go to Hell, period.

I'm not positive what the root of the problem is here. It could be something lost in the translations between the original, God-guided manuscripts and subsequent, man-interpreted versions of the Bible, or it could be that pastors around the world have simply been deceived and preach some ancient ruler-dictated interpretation of that (and other similar passages) as a mandate to fealty towards civil authority, when what it seems to me it is clearly speaking of is God's and His surrogates' power and/or authorities. I do not believe that any Christian is damned to Hell for resisting and protesting against abortion, or for donating to ministries that are going to other countries to witness in direct violation of the civil law in those countries, and if I accept you (or your pastor's) take on it, I have to believe that. Quite to the contrary, Christians may bring the very judgment upon themselves that the NIV promises if they don't oppose Satan's work in the guise of civil authority.

And you know what? Even if we accept your (or your pastor's) take, we are ignoring a very important bit of reality here: We are the government in this country. That is the authority that God put in place here. Government is under our authority, not the other way around. That is the system that He put over this country. So who violates God's law when the government that He created to be subservient to The People, violates the laws which we authorized them to administrate and enforce?

There is tons of scholarship every bit as qualified as your pastor to speak on the subject, that rejects the "civil authority" interpretation of Romans 13. Here's a couple that I've referred to often over the last couple of years as I've struggled with how to understand God's intentions for our relationship to each other and to our governments:

Pastor Chuck Baldwin - Romans 13

Fellowship of the Martyrs - What Does Romans 13 REALLY Say?
Link Removed
Part 2
Part 3

Blues

 

[Treo]

As near as I can tell, your pastor is reading from the New International Version of the Bible. Where it refers to rebelling against the authorities, it says that those who do so, "...will bring judgment on themselves." Well, duh, everything we do will bring judgement upon each and every one of us, whether the action be judged righteous or sinful and unrepentant.

Actually it's NKJV................

 

[Treo]

<space holder so it's clear what I'm reponding to >

Blues

I should never read this forum before I got to bed because when I do I end up tossing and turning about something I want to say and I don’t get any sleep until I drag my butt out of bed and say it.

I do not profess any great understanding of Scripture. My general study method is to read it and take the plain text at face value and not to worry too much about the parts I don’t understand because I trust that God will reveal what He means when I need to know it.

I have 4 translations that I really like KJV, NKJV, New English and Good news. I find that there are passages that make no sense to me in one or more translations but jump off the page in another. I also keep a Strong’s close at hand if there’s a word that I really don’t get or that Stands out that I want to know exactly what the writer had in mind when he used that word. I also have a couple of really good study Bibles that I like: Full Life (KJV), Spirit Filled Life (NKJV) and Inspirational Study Bible (NKJV). And I’m hoping to get through the McArthur Study Bible (NKJV) before Jesus comes back. I also atend a church that believes in studying through the Bible a line at a time and I listen to the pastor's radio broadcast at work everyday so I'm getting someone else's interpretation of the same Scripture I'm reading as a backstop so I don't get into some weird personal interpretation of Scripture

The point that I’m trying to make here is that even with all of those resources I’m still living in flesh and because of that I’m never ( in this life) going to have a perfect understanding of Scripture. I’m just not and I’m not sure that I’m meant to.

I believe Christians are called to study the Word and I believe that it’s supposed to be our standard (Don’t tell me that God is leading you to get a divorce when His Word very clearly says He hates it) but I don’t believe any of us are ever going to have perfect understanding (or application) of it in this life.

I read the Word daily, I shoot for 3 chapters of a given book and one chapter of Provebs every day and I go from Genesis to the Revelation again and again and again (15 years worth) and it seems to me that the key is if I get it in there The Holy Spirit will use it to read my mail and change me from the inside out and I think that’s the whole point of Scripture.

So, I take all this and apply it to Romans 13 and what I get is I don’t understand exactly what that chapter is about but I’m pretty sure what it isn’t about. It isn’t about me bombing abortion clinics because God told me to. It isn’t about me not paying my taxes because this government isn’t of God (The Roman Empire wasn’t of God either but Jesus was pretty specific about paying taxes to them). It certainly isn’t about me taking on the government because they impeded my personal comfort.

What I think it is about is as far as it’s in my power I am to live at peace with and obedience to the government. That doesn’t mean I compromise God’s word and it doesn’t mean I condone the actions of the government.

The Bible make it clear that our conduct as Christians is to be above reproach so that when we do have to cross the government we don’t present the image of a bunch of malcontented troublemakers.

Go back and read the book of Daniel, Shaddrach, Meshach and Abed-nego were courteous and polite (while refusing to violate the Command of God) right up to the time they threw them in the fire. They also made it clear delivered or not they were going to serve God. (IOW they were perfectly willing to suffer the consequences of their civil disobedience)

It’s hard for me to make a concrete concluding point to this because I don’t have perfect understanding but I have to get up for work at 0200 so I’m going to end this here for now and reserve the right to add more tomorrow

 

[BluesStringer]

<space holder so it's clear what I'm reponding to >

Blues

That would be a welcome sight if it were only true. But....

So, I take all this and apply it to Romans 13 and what I get is I don’t understand exactly what that chapter is about but I’m pretty sure what it isn’t about. It isn’t about me bombing abortion clinics because God told me to. It isn’t about me not paying my taxes because this government isn’t of God (The Roman Empire wasn’t of God either but Jesus was pretty specific about paying taxes to them). It certainly isn’t about me taking on the government because they impeded my personal comfort.

You're not responding to me with that, nor are you responding to anything anyone else said whom you might expect or perceive that I've been defending. Maybe if you had used Eric Rudolph as an example of a citizen on a real war-footing such as you have previously described, the bit about bombing abortion clinics would make sense in the context of our discussion. Instead you used Randy Weaver who went from one end of complying with government authority to the other with nothing more rebellious than cutting off an inch or two of a shotgun barrel at the behest of a government agent who knew he would be prosecuted if he gave into his many attempts to get him to do it.

Neither I or anyone else that I've seen has said a word about not paying taxes for any reason, because of government's evil deeds or otherwise. You apparently read people's motivations into the things they write rather than just replying to what they actually say. It's impossible to have a calm, honest, thoughtful discussion with you because of that seemingly uncontrollable propensity.

And what the heck does "...taking on the government because they impeded my personal comfort" even mean? Whatever you read that you now claim that line to be in reply to from me has been wildly misinterpreted, misunderstood, or perhaps wholly imagined out of thin air by you. I know more about personal discomfort than I would ever burden you with knowing about, some of it just plain ol' luck of the draw, and some self-imposed due to horrible decisions I have made in my life, but none of it do I blame on government, or worse, on God. I really have no idea what you were trying to say there, or how it could conceivably relate to anything I've said anywhere on this forum.

I use the words "protest" or "oppose" and you read/hear the words "bomb abortion clinics." Is it just the slightest bit possible that your use of rhetorical hyperbole is no less inappropriate than you perceive Axe's use of the word "war" to be? Casting the first stone and all that stuff.....but I digress.

You didn't reply to a word, thought or idea I actually expressed. C'est la vie. God Bless and goodnight.

Blues

 

[Treo]

The above was just general observations about Romans 13.

 

[BluesStringer]

The above was just general observations about Romans 13.

That's not what you said when you wrote it.

<space holder so it's clear what I'm reponding to >

 

[Treo]

That's not what you said when you wrote it.

My original post is unedited. there are no words in it now that weren't there when I posted, there are no words deleted from when I originally posted.

Your response 124 above leaves me with the impression that you have been just waiting for me to give you an excuse to attack. I was not making a direct response point for point to your post and I'm sorry if you took it that way. I was not trying to imply that you bomb abortion clinics, neither was I attempting to imply that you don't pay your taxes. Although I have seen people who are not you attempt to justify both from that chapter.

I was merely offering my take on the chapter itself and attempting to draw a framework of how I reached that conclusion.

 

[BluesStringer]

My original post is unedited. there are no words in it now that weren't there when I posted, there are no words deleted from when I originally posted.

Good grief Treo. Where did I accuse you of editing your post? I quoted the part that validates that you made no claim of a "general observation" about anything, you said you were making it clear what you were responding to, which was my post.

The above was just general observations about Romans 13.

That's not what you said when you wrote it.

<space holder so it's clear what I'm reponding to >

Now you're raising another red herring about what's been said. Like I said, it is seemingly an uncontrollable propensity within you.

Your response 124 above leaves me with the impression that you have been just waiting for me to give you an excuse to attack.

"Attack?" What are you talking about? Frustrated with your non-responsive twisting of my words, yes, absolutely, but I have made no "attack" on you at all.

I was not making a direct response point for point to your post and I'm sorry if you took it that way.

Not only were you not making a point for point response to my post, you made absolutely no points in response to my post, yet stated how clearly you wanted to make it that that was your intention. Then you get all butt-hurt, feeling "attacked," because I point out that it was completely non-responsive to anything I said.

You gave me a link that explained clearly what your view of Romans 13's meaning(s) are. I listened to it, even cited a bit of it as the basis of my reply to you, and analyzed a bit of it, pointing to what I believe is a conflict in language between two (or maybe more) versions of the Bible. I posted links for you so you could understand where my questions derive from. Did you listen to them? Any part of them? If you did, it was not apparent in your 100% non-responsive "reply" to "that" post.

What you now perceive as being "attacked" is nothing more than me trying to understand as clearly as possible the Word of God. I engaged you in a discussion because one, you brought up a Chapter that I have been trying to get a clearer understanding of for a couple of years and, two, even though we have rarely agreed on anything on this forum, your ability to articulate your understanding of Scripture has been quite impressive. If only you understood your fellow forum members' words as well. Since you don't, I'm going to try again to make myself understood.

The man who finally taught me how to open my heart to Christ so that I could accept Him as my Lord and Savior is right now in India witnessing for Christ. This is his fourth trip in as many years. He spends anywhere from four to eight months at a time away from his family, living in the most disgusting squalor you could ever imagine, defying the Indian government by witnessing for Christ to a mostly Hindu population in the areas his mission visits. Like I said in Post #121, if I accept that the "authorities" referred to in Romans 13 in the KJV (and likely other versions that I'm not up to speed on) are worldly governments, I have to accept that my closest brother in Christ has brought damnation upon himself for his missionary work. That interpretation means that I am damned as well because I have supported his work to the furthest extent possible for over three years now.

The man to whom I am referring goes by "INVAR" on the web. He runs a blog called "Sword At The Ready," to which I have linked and quoted several times on this forum. While his faith is consistently reflected in his blog posts, the topics he writes about are most often politics-related. He is decidedly a part of the Patriot movement. You can see quite a lot of what he does in India by visiting his YouTube channel. Something you said yesterday I could not understand in light of my relationship with the most godly human being I know who is also one of the most dedicated Patriots I know:

There was a time when my whole life was wrapped up in the patriot movement to the point that it was a false religion.

Is this truly-stated, or is this hyperbole? If truly-stated, it's befuddling to me how or why you couldn't distinguish between your commitment to God and your commitment to country, or what the one True God revealed to you that would make you give up your patriotism as a way to better serve Him. Does Romans 13 have anything directly to do with this confusion? Is there any part of the Bible that you understand to promulgate the notion that deep-seated patriotism is tantamount to worshiping a false god? Honestly, I can't fathom the feelings that the above quote reveals must have been present in you.

So now we understand that Romans 13 has no loopholes to being Saved if we defy the worldly authorities that your understanding of it says God put here not to be defied. We further understand that just the act of being a dedicated Patriot to that same governmental system has the potential to further damn Bible-believing Christians to Hell because it "was a false religion" to you. Further still, if we ask you how you came to these confusing conclusions, and deign to question the interpretation your pastor offered in your link, it is nothing more than laying in wait to "attack" you. Me and my brother in Christ are going to Hell for following Jesus' command to spread His Word, and if we try to understand if that interpretation is one we should adopt, and adjust our methods and places of testimony accordingly, we are "attacking" you. Have I missed anything? Nope, that about covers it as far as I can tell. Thanks for your input. I'll take it under consideration.

Blues

 

[Treo]

You know what? I tried I really tried to be civil and try to explain myself. In fact I was amazed that you even wanted to listen to someone that you made such a public point of castigating for being a “Cowardly poltroon” (that’s a mighty Christ like attitude) because I didn’t share your world view the last time we interacted but I have come to the conclusion that you are the kind of person that gets off in displaying your language skills to make others look foolish on the internet and I’m through playing the game.

I got nothing more to say

Good day.

 

[BluesStringer]

...In fact I was amazed that you even wanted to listen to someone that you made such a public point of castigating for being a “Cowardly poltroon”....

Treo, honestly, I think you need professional help. Holding onto grudges that are more than a year old over such a meaningless discourtesy is bordering on obsessive. I guess the age of that slight will have to be reason enough to forgive being misquoted, but back on Feb. 28, 2012, I said you were a "pusillanimous poltroon." It was a redundant use of language, but it rolled off the tongue with such poetic rhythm that I went ahead and used it because the depth of its redundancy was only exceeded by its truthfulness. Link Removed

...(that’s a mighty Christ like attitude)....

I certainly have never claimed to be Christ-like, but even if I had, the utterance was in response to you saying, "After reading some of your posts I really, really, believe that some of you strap up every day praying to God for a chance to be a hero."

As in this thread, your wild imagination got away from you about what people were saying, and I answered that tripe by saying, "...I challenge you to cite one post where anyone said anything close to the equivalent of praying to God for "the chance" to get into a gunfight. One post you pusillanimous poltroon. Good luck with that."

Of course, that reply didn't come in a vacuum. It was preceded by many posts of yours that could have inspired the same kind of utterance from me or anyone else, including the very person who was involved in the shooting we were discussing. Not surprisingly, you never supplied any example that would lead you to such a specious, insulting, unjustifiably judgmental, and dare I say, un-Christ-like, conclusion about people with whom you had disagreements in an internet forum discussion.

But here, you're not satisfied with exaggerating as an "attack" the honest questions about a Bible Chapter that I've sought your opinion on after you invoked it to buttress an argument you were having with someone else, now you go into outright dishonesty to make me look bad in reader's eyes, when you say:

...because I didn’t share your world view the last time we interacted....

I called you a pusillanimous poltroon because of what you said that I quoted above. We weren't discussing a "world view" subject at all, we were discussing a very isolated and specific incident that you adopted an extremely jaded, but more importantly, incorrect and inaccurate view of right from the start. And in what may be the irony of all ironies that I have ever encountered on this forum, the thing you said that put us squarely at odds in that thread was that even if the law said that you were obligated to give a witness statement, you would still sneak out the back door before the cops got there to avoid compliance! In case you have forgotten, this all started in this thread because you invoked Romans 13 against Axeanda45's assertion that, "We are also NOT commanded by Him to follow evil men or govt," and your answer to that said that Romans 13 says, "....that we are [to] obey the laws of that government unless they directly contradict the word of God." And now you bring up a year+ old thread where the reason for my strong disagreement with you was partly due to your position that you would be "Gone like yesterday's news" even if the law obligated you to wait for cops and give a witness statement! So what word of God would have been *directly contradicted* by your legal obligation to stick around long enough to give a witness statement, hmmm? Un-freakin'-real, Treo.

....but I have come to the conclusion that you are the kind of person that gets off in displaying your language skills to make others look foolish on the internet and I’m through playing the game.

First, if I "get off" on this "game" you speak of, you have to give me that a year+ between such orgasmic delight means I control my urges quite well.

Second, my language skills in this instance are only eclipsed by your depth of hypocrisy, your dishonesty, and your cognitive dissonance. It wasn't any skill on my part that made you write all the inconsistent and irreconcilable memes you have exposed your propensity for, Treo. You brought up Romans 13. You claimed it demands obedience to our government lest we bring judgment (or damnation, depending on which version we're discussing) upon ourselves. You brought up a year+ old thread where you said in your own words that you would defy a law in complete disobedience of the interpretation of Romans 13 that you put forward in this thread. If you think you look like a fool, that's on you, and has nothing whatsoever to do with any language skills I may or may not possess.

I got nothing more to say

That'll be the day.

Blues

 

[Treo]

You know, there's one sure way to know if God supports your revolution.... go try it.

 

[BIGJOHN621]

Talk about a train going off the tracks.....

 

[BluesStringer]

I got nothing more to say

That'll be the day

Boy! I sure called that one right, didn't I!

You know, there's one sure way to know if Gid supports your revolution.... go try it.

You can't even say whether or not God supported the Revolutionary War, or whether all of our country's Founders and the people who fought and died so that they could write and implement the greatest document ever written by man, are burning in Hell right now due to the damnation they brought upon themselves for revolting against tyranny. All that would be true if we accept yours and/or your pastor's version of Biblical Truth. Further, when confronted with well-researched and well-delivered scholarship that points to both misinterpretations and faulty translations of Romans 13, you ignore it and choose instead to claim to have been "attacked" because the questions were raised! You accused me of laying in wait, instead of participating in a conversation of which my only intent was to better understand the Word. You expose your propensity over and over again for exaggeration, dishonesty and holding grudges for more than a year over an insult delivered in response to that same propensity towards exaggeration and dishonesty! You sully the names of men, women and children who were victims of the same government you invoke Romans 13 to excuse the abuses of! And at least one of those men is a good Bible-believing Christian who lost his son and good Christian wife to government guns, and still submitted to government authority only to be acquitted of all but the lowest, most insignificant charge of failure to appear.

And now, ostensibly in "reply" to me, you dare me to engage in "my" revolution to find out what Romans 13 really means. The only "revolt" I have said I am personally involved in is supporting a missionary who goes to India at least once a year for months at a time to spread the Word and distribute Bibles in defiance of Indian law. If Romans 13 means what you say it means, then it is contradicted by multitudes of verses commanding us to do exactly what my missionary friend does, and what I support in both thought and deed with a clear and open conscience in the name of our Lord, Jesus Christ.

Mark 16:15: And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation...

Jeremiah 1:7-8: But the Lord said to me, “Do not say, ‘I am only a youth’; for to all to whom I send you, you shall go, and whatever I command you, you shall speak. Do not be afraid of them, for I am with you to deliver you, declares the Lord.”

1 Peter 3:15: but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect

Without a doubt, you know that I could go on and on with Scripture that commands that my mentor and I continue to engage the "revolt" that we do in India. That was my motivation for engaging you, Treo. I am conflicted about wanting to follow all of God's Word, but not being able to reconcile the most common understandings of Romans 13 with all the multitudes of verses which seem to contradict it.

But I'm sure you know better than I what my motivations were. I was laying in wait to act un-Christ-like towards po' po' pitiful attacked you. I will pray as hard as I can that you get the help you need, Treo.

Blues

 

[whodat2710]

Talk about a train going off the tracks.....

Having A Right To Carry Does Not Make You A LEO

Obviously with a topic like this, the conversation will evolve into quoting scripture... What part don't you get?

 

[Treo]

FWIW I did listen to about 20 minutes of Chuck Baldwin’s sermon on Romans 13. I turned off because I I don’t believe his take on it. And I really question his reasoning.

Please cite a source that isn’t Chuck Baldwin that that confirms that first century Christians believed they weren’t subject to any king but Jesus. Not only is that not historically accurate it’s not scripturally accurate or at least it doesn’t line up with Jesus’ teaching (I.E Render unto Caesar) .

Second please cite a Scripture that states the God had to implement the 10 commandments because He was trying to curb man’s sin. Again, not scripturally accurate. When I see glaring mistakes like that it causes me to question the speaker’s motive and grasp of his topic.

I don’t doubt that Chuck Baldwin is sincere but I think he’s sincerely wrong. He’s mixing (IMO) an idolatry of patriotism with Christianity into a religion God never intended.

The Constitution is a great document, I revere it and (unlike you) I actually have gone to war (a real war not a “we’re at “war” with the JBT war BTW) to support and defend it. (but I’m the coward, got it) But it isn’t God’s word and it’s not gonna last forever and if you revere it or this country above God’s Word you’re an idolater.

I really would like to understand what you are saying here, you tell me that the government is guilty of all these heinous offenses (and I absolutely agree that it is) and that these offenses would justify a revolt (not that you used those words but that’s the gist I get) so why aren’t you out there in the street? If you truly believe a revolt is justified why aren’t you revolting? Don’t tell me you can walk on water while you’re still in the boat

Just so we're all clear I am starting a new thought here

B said If Romans 13 means what you say it means, then it is contradicted by multitudes of verses commanding us to do exactly what my missionary friend does, and what I support in both thought and deed with a clear and open conscience in the name of our Lord, Jesus Christ.

Now I am gonna agree with Chuck Baldwin on this point, you can’t build a doctrine based on one scripture or passage (nor can you use one scripture or passage and your twisted understanding of someone else’s interpretation of it to win an internet pissing contest) I stated quite clearly that

What I think it is about is as far as it’s in my power I am to live at peace with and obedience to the government. That doesn’t mean I compromise God’s word and it doesn’t mean I condone the actions of the government.
The Bible makes it clear that our conduct as Christians is to be above reproach so that when we do have to cross the government we don’t present the image of a bunch of malcontented troublemakers.

I then stated a Biblical example of civil disobedience (You know the very thing you say I don't condone)

You can’t tell me that you read what I said then tell me that I say that Romans 13 means you obey the government at all cost including disobeying God.


Without a doubt, you know that I could go on and on with Scripture that commands that my mentor and I continue to engage the "revolt" that we do in India. That was my motivation for engaging you, Treo. I am conflicted about wanting to follow all of God's Word, but not being able to reconcile the most common understandings of Romans 13 with all the multitudes of verses which seem to contradict it.

Again, new thought. What “common understandings” of Romans 13 are you hearing? I will bet my life that Eric Cartier never said that we obey the government when it means disobeying God’s word. What I have heard him say quite clearly is that if you do engage in civil disobedience (such as preaching the Gospel in a country where it’s frowned upon) you had better be able to support your actions chapter and verse out of the Bible and you had better be prepared to accept the consequences. (Oddly enough someone on this very forum in this very thread said almost the exact same thing. Now who was that?)

.
Go back and read the book of Daniel, Shaddrach, Meshach and Abed-nego were courteous and polite (while refusing to violate the Command of God) right up to the time they threw them in the fire. They also made it clear delivered or not they were going to serve God. (IOW they were perfectly willing to suffer the consequences of their civil disobedience)

ETA Just an FYI but I would be extremely cautious about assuming that everyone else “misunderstands” a given Scripture and that only my guys “truly understand it” that’s the kind of thinking that lead to Jonestown. /EDIT

But I'm sure you know better than I what my motivations were. I was laying in wait to act un-Christ-like towards po' po' pitiful attacked you. I will pray as hard as I can that you get the help you need, Treo.

You might want to get the redwood out of your eye first partner

Oh, and while I'm thinking about it,

the "revolt" that we do in India.

Use of that word does not fall within your current scope of practice. When you get back from India then you come talk to me about "we"

 

[BluesStringer]

The Constitution is a great document, I revere it and (unlike you) I actually have gone to war (a real war not a “we’re at “war” with the JBT war BTW) to support and defend it. (but I’m the coward, got it)

The only time I said you were a coward was more than a year ago when you sat behind your keyboard telling people that they were "praying to God for the chance to get into a gunfight." Your only conceivable rationale for that insult was that they supported a young man who stopped into a Waffle House in the wee hours of the morning for some breakfast after a night shift, and ended up having to kill someone who was busy herding the patrons and employees into a back room at gun point. Not only did you repeatedly insult everyone discussing the incident in support of the shooter's perspective, you even questioned the shooter himself when he joined this site for the express purpose of responding to the Monday-morning-quarterbacks like you who said, just like the OP in this thread, that he was nothing but a cop-wannabe, because he drew his weapon and engaged the armed robber before he was directly threatened. Any one of those kinds of insults said to the face of who they were intended for might not be considered a cowardly utterance. But from the safety of behind your keyboard, it was as far as I was concerned. That's my story and I'm stickin' to it. Nothing I've seen from you since serves to contradict that impression. Deal with it, and then get over it already. You say over and over that you don't care what others think of you, so quit bringing up a year-old insult that was specific to one point in time over one specific incident that you and I and a whole bunch of other people were commenting on. It wasn't meant to stand as an irreversible, set-in-stone observation, but your incessant whining about it more than a year later may well make it so.

I really would like to understand what you are saying here, you tell me that the government is guilty of all these heinous offenses (and I absolutely agree that it is) and that these offenses would justify a revolt (not that you used those words but that’s the gist I get) so why aren’t you out there in the street?

Wow. Just freakin' wow. Every time you post you pull another canard out of your ass that assigns my motivations to me when I have already denied and debunked them! I say the words "I oppose abortion" and you hear "bomb abortion clinics." I say the word "protest" and you hear the words "revolt" or "revolution." Axe can't catch a break for using the word "war," but you just keep pluggin' along with your hyperbole, exaggerations and outright dishonesty unapologetically!

I have been in the streets. I have gone to WA DC at least five times in the last six or seven years, the last time on March 20 - 22, 2010 to protest the passage of ObamaCare. I have been to Tea Party and 2nd Amendment rallies from Huntsville to Atlanta to Columbia, SC to Ames, IA and beyond.....well beyond, and am a founding member of the Huntsville Chapter of FairTax.org, and have rallied, researched and written extensively in support of tax reform long before the IRS hacks got their asses in a crack over targeting people/organizations just like me/the ones I am active with. I have lobbied my government representatives to the point that my Congressman literally turns the other way when he sees me coming, and then smiles and lies in my face when I pin him down for one (or more) of his most recent transgressions.

But here's the deal, Treo. I know without a doubt that there are some, maybe even many people, who just read that last paragraph who are thinking, "Yeah, right. Talk is cheap. I'll bet he's never gotten off the couch in his life." People even have the temerity to actually type stuff like that in here, and then if I link to the picture threads chronicling the events for people who couldn't attend for whatever reason, I still get dismissive blather about "How nice for you that you can afford to do that. The rest of us still have to work." Your attitude screams that that's the kind of crap you're thinking! And I don't have to defend what I think OR do to you or anybody else, so take that "why aren't you out in the streets" dismissive blather, and your made-up-out-of-whole-cloth imaginings about me calling for a "revolution," and stick it where the sun don't shine. You don't know a freakin' thing about me except that I criticize cops who murder and beat and torture people in complete contravention to the law that they're sworn to uphold. And anyone who would criticize me or Axe or anyone else for criticizing corrupt, violent and evil cops for our criticisms of them, indeed has earned the moniker of "badgefluffer."

If you truly believe a revolt is justified why aren’t you revolting?

You just don't ever tire of making sh!t up, do you?

Don’t tell me you can walk on water while you’re still in the boat

So you say you've been to war.....does that mean you can walk on water? Even your metaphors are cognitively dissonant!

Just so we're all clear I am starting a new thought here

The only "new" thought I've seen you employ here is, "Where's my keyboard? I need to spew some new made-up tripe."

Blues

 

[Treo]

But here's the deal, Treo. I know without a doubt that there are some, maybe even many people, who just read that last paragraph who are thinking, "Yeah, right. Talk is cheap. I'll bet he's never gotten off the couch in his life."

I will give you that one, if you say you've done those things then I believe you, even though you fail to give me the same courtesy

So you say you've been to war.....

And no it doesn't mean I can walk on water it does however mean I have put my money where my mouth is.


And don't think I've failed to notice that you have completely ignored the meat of my post

 

[BluesStringer]

Oh, and while I'm thinking about it,

the "revolt" that we do in India.

Use of that word does not fall within your current scope of practice. When you get back from India then you come talk to me about "we"

You are utterly despicable Treo. You have no more idea what I mean when I say I "support" Michael in his ministry than you did about what I do physically to support/oppose the political issues I involve myself with.

To try to make someone who supports such a righteous ministry feel small, when even the most insignificant effort/expense is motivated only by a wish to serve the Lord, is the kind of pettiness and spiritual bankruptcy that I wouldn't even expect from an atheist. Again, I will pray for you.

Blues

 

[Treo]

This exchange has become nothing more than a pissing contest.

It presents a horrible example of Christianity as well as an appalling witness for Jesus Christ.

I apologize.

I am done

 

[revjen45]

"From the article:

"She said that she was told by the police that an officer asked Waller to put down the weapon, but he would not comply."

Sounds like a legit shoot to me. As unfortunate as it is for all concerned. If the police tell you to drop your weapon and you refuse to comply, you get what you got coming. "

That's what they always say. Like the "furtive move" after the shootee turns out to be unarmed.