Are We Truly In The End Times?

[Adami]

The bible never states that part of genesis is from the point of view of the earth. You're assuming that.

Wow...this statement just baffles me.    It's like if I said, "there's a car outside, but then I went inside the house, and I couldn't see the car anymore"....and you're saying I never went in the house...and that the car stopped existing.

I guess we just have to agree to disagree.

Actually it would be more like if I said the bible never states that part of genesis is from the point of view of the earth, and that you're just assuming it.

[Jaffa]

jammindude, your entire point seems to rely on the idea that in Genesis 1:1, 'the heavens' is referring to the universe above.  That in and of itself is a personal interpretation of the Bible. 

[rumborak]

Damn jammin, knowingly or not, you represent just about everything that is wrong with religion. Your approach to Scripture has been the cause of wars and death for thousands of years.

rumborak

[theseoafs]

>Takes A LOT of pride in never making undue interpretations of scripture
>Interprets everything

[jammindude]

Damn jammin, knowingly or not, you represent just about everything that is wrong with religion. Your approach to Scripture has been the cause of wars and death for thousands of years.

rumborak

Don't get this at all.   If the Scriptures were followed *as a whole*, there would be no more wars at all.    Jesus set the example of self-sacrifice.   I would never take up the sword against my fellow man.   In fact, the scriptures teach that a Christian would die before taking another life.   

Wars are the antithesis of Scripture.  (again...if taken as *the whole* of scripture)

[rumborak]

That's what just about every harbinger of war has said throughout history. "If they only believed what I do, there wouldn't need to be war. It's them who are forcing me to do this."

rumborak

[jammindude]

That's what just about every harbinger of war has said throughout history. "If they only believed what I do, there wouldn't need to be war. It's them who are forcing me to do this."

rumborak

Rummy...I'm sorry but this makes absolutely NO SENSE whatsoever.   The scripture plainly says that God's servants are not to take up the sword...not for any reason whatsoever.  Period.   Therefore anyone who has ever decided *they* had a reason to be an exception to the rule is not following scripture.   

I really don't feel like I'm getting my point across, but I don't see how I could possibly be more plain.   The scripture does not leave any room for anyone to make an exception.   Anyone who has ever gone into battle...for any reason whatsoever...is disobeying God's Word.   It doesn't matter if they think they have a good reason or not...they deny Jesus' command by their actions.   War is never acceptable...not for any reason at all...whatsoever.

If I'm repeating myself, it's because I feel like I said it already, and people still aren't getting it.   There are no exceptions.   No taking of another life...not ever...not for any reason. 

[Adami]

Maybe I can interject here.

Rumby, JWs are pacifists. (ironic given that they were the only christians to resist WW2 in europe). Jamminbro isn't going to war with anyone anytime soon.

Jamminman, Rumby is mostly just saying that the people who DID go to war countless times for religion had a very similar mindset about scripture as you do. That there's only one objective way to read it and everyone else is wrong. Granted you will gladly leave it at that, but they didn't.

[jammindude]

Pacifists is a bit strong...but I know that you do understand.   (I wouldn't stand ideally by and let someone harm my family...but if someone was attempting it, my goal would be to do anything possible to *make the action stop*...NOT to take another life.   I know of several situations where people got out of it by preaching instead of fighting...but every situation is different). 

[Adami]

Pacifists is a bit strong...but I know that you do understand.   (I wouldn't stand ideally by and let someone harm my family...but if someone was attempting it, my goal would be to do anything possible to *make the action stop*...NOT to take another life.   I know of several situations where people got out of it by preaching instead of fighting...but every situation is different).

Yea, but you got my point. In fact one of my friends tried to talk me out of dating a JW by saying they're pacifists, as if that's a deterrent. Luckily I didn't heed his advice. :-D

[theseoafs]

jd, Rumby is not actually suggesting that you're going to kill people. You're obviously not going to.

He's saying your mindset is very similar to the people throughout history who have killed for religion, because you think very, very, very highly of your own interpretation of scripture.

[Jaffa]

The scripture does not leave any room for anyone to make an exception.   Anyone who has ever gone into battle...for any reason whatsoever...is disobeying God's Word.   

What about the ones who were specifically commanded by God? 

1 Samuel 15:3 - "Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”  1 Samuel 15:18-19 - "And he sent you on a mission, saying, ‘Go and completely destroy those wicked people, the Amalekites; wage war against them until you have wiped them out.’ Why did you not obey the Lord? Why did you pounce on the plunder and do evil in the eyes of the Lord?”" 

So not only was Saul commanded to kill, but he was actually reprimanded for not being more thorough in his destruction.   

I understand that this is not supported by the 'whole of scripture', but how can you possibly maintain that God has never wanted anyone to kill anyone when the Bible has examples of Him specifically commanding t?

[jammindude]

The scripture does not leave any room for anyone to make an exception.   Anyone who has ever gone into battle...for any reason whatsoever...is disobeying God's Word.   

What about the ones who were specifically commanded by God? 

1 Samuel 15:3 - "Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”  1 Samuel 15:18-19 - "And he sent you on a mission, saying, ‘Go and completely destroy those wicked people, the Amalekites; wage war against them until you have wiped them out.’ Why did you not obey the Lord? Why did you pounce on the plunder and do evil in the eyes of the Lord?”" 

So not only was Saul commanded to kill, but he was actually reprimanded for not being more thorough in his destruction.   

I understand that this is not supported by the 'whole of scripture', but how can you possibly maintain that God has never wanted anyone to kill anyone when the Bible has examples of Him specifically commanding t?

Because I never said that it has been the case throughout history.   

It is the command for Christians...with no exceptions.    Even stating that if an angel from heaven were to tell us anything different, let that angel be cursed.  So not even a "voice from heaven" could make an exception to the rule. 

[Adami]

To be fair RockinBro, you did say "ever"  .

[rumborak]

The scripture does not leave any room for anyone to make an exception.   Anyone who has ever gone into battle...for any reason whatsoever...is disobeying God's Word.   

What about the ones who were specifically commanded by God? 

1 Samuel 15:3 - "Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”  1 Samuel 15:18-19 - "And he sent you on a mission, saying, ‘Go and completely destroy those wicked people, the Amalekites; wage war against them until you have wiped them out.’ Why did you not obey the Lord? Why did you pounce on the plunder and do evil in the eyes of the Lord?”" 

So not only was Saul commanded to kill, but he was actually reprimanded for not being more thorough in his destruction.   

I understand that this is not supported by the 'whole of scripture', but how can you possibly maintain that God has never wanted anyone to kill anyone when the Bible has examples of Him specifically commanding t?

Because I never said that it has been the case throughout history.   

It is the command for Christians...with no exceptions.    Even stating that if an angel from heaven were to tell us anything different, let that angel be cursed.  So not even a "voice from heaven" could make an exception to the rule.

Jesus wasn't exactly pacifist either. His violent outburst in the temple for one, and Matthew 11:20-24 isn't exactly "mellow" either.

Also, barely any religious call to arms has been "offensive" officially. They were all supposedly responses to external threats, and I'm sure you'll find plenty of passages in the Bible justifying whatever means necessary.

rumborak

[Jaffa]

The scripture does not leave any room for anyone to make an exception.   Anyone who has ever gone into battle...for any reason whatsoever...is disobeying God's Word.   

What about the ones who were specifically commanded by God? 

1 Samuel 15:3 - "Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”  1 Samuel 15:18-19 - "And he sent you on a mission, saying, ‘Go and completely destroy those wicked people, the Amalekites; wage war against them until you have wiped them out.’ Why did you not obey the Lord? Why did you pounce on the plunder and do evil in the eyes of the Lord?”" 

So not only was Saul commanded to kill, but he was actually reprimanded for not being more thorough in his destruction.   

I understand that this is not supported by the 'whole of scripture', but how can you possibly maintain that God has never wanted anyone to kill anyone when the Bible has examples of Him specifically commanding t?

Because I never said that it has been the case throughout history.   

Anyone who has ever gone into battle...for any reason whatsoever...is disobeying God's Word.

Sorry for the confusion if that wasn't what you meant, but you did say it, quite plainly. 

[jammindude]

Ok...my bad on the "ever".   I did mean that to imply within the context of the history of Christianity. 

Perhaps it would have been been better to say that anyone who has ever gone to war was not a Christian. 

Or anyone who has gone to war since Christ's new commandment has disobeyed God's Word.

This is what I meant, and I apologize for using the wrong wording.   And actually...thank you all for calling me out on it, because I hate it when I miscommunicate. 

[yeshaberto]

I would have to disagree, though, simply based on Romans 13.  The government does not bear the sword in vain, and is given its authority by God as an executor of revenge.

[Jaffa]

Ok...my bad on the "ever".   I did mean that to imply within the context of the history of Christianity. 

Perhaps it would have been been better to say that anyone who has ever gone to war was not a Christian. 

Or anyone who has gone to war since Christ's new commandment has disobeyed God's Word.

This is what I meant, and I apologize for using the wrong wording.   And actually...thank you all for calling me out on it, because I hate it when I miscommunicate.

No worries.  Sorry for jumping down your throat about it.  I now realize the misunderstanding, but at first I was rather perplexed by your claim.   

[jammindude]

The scripture does not leave any room for anyone to make an exception.   Anyone who has ever gone into battle...for any reason whatsoever...is disobeying God's Word.   

What about the ones who were specifically commanded by God? 

1 Samuel 15:3 - "Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”  1 Samuel 15:18-19 - "And he sent you on a mission, saying, ‘Go and completely destroy those wicked people, the Amalekites; wage war against them until you have wiped them out.’ Why did you not obey the Lord? Why did you pounce on the plunder and do evil in the eyes of the Lord?”" 

So not only was Saul commanded to kill, but he was actually reprimanded for not being more thorough in his destruction.   

I understand that this is not supported by the 'whole of scripture', but how can you possibly maintain that God has never wanted anyone to kill anyone when the Bible has examples of Him specifically commanding t?

Because I never said that it has been the case throughout history.   

It is the command for Christians...with no exceptions.    Even stating that if an angel from heaven were to tell us anything different, let that angel be cursed.  So not even a "voice from heaven" could make an exception to the rule.

Jesus wasn't exactly pacifist either. His violent outburst in the temple for one, and Matthew 11:20-24 isn't exactly "mellow" either.

Also, barely any religious call to arms has been "offensive" officially. They were all supposedly responses to external threats, and I'm sure you'll find plenty of passages in the Bible justifying whatever means necessary.

rumborak

As to your last point...I see nothing in scripture that over-rides Christ's commandment.   There were wars God authorized in the past.   But since the death of his son he has delegated ALL judging to HIM, and ordered all his servants to show loving kindness toward all.   Only Jesus can decide who the incorrigible are...and only he can pass judgment.     We must leave all judgments to him.   

Since Christ's command, you will find nothing to justify killing anyone...not for any reason.   As a matter fact, quite the opposite...we're supposed to pray for those who are persecuting us.     So no, you won't find anything "justifying whatever means necessary" in the Bible since the advent of Christianity.

[jammindude]

I would have to disagree, though, simply based on Romans 13.  The government does not bear the sword in vain, and is given its authority by God as an executor of revenge.

The government is given authority to keep the peace.  But since Christians were to be no part of the world, and held no government office...this simply applied to Christians to *be respectful to the governments.*   They were not a part OF the governments. 

It is a well documented fact that the first century Christians would not hold any public office, and would NOT join the Army...even if the punishment for refusal was death. 

So yes, God authorizes governments to bear the sword to keep the peace...but then he orders Christians to not be any part of that governmental system.

[rumborak]

Jesus however also said he does not negate the old law. So, it's rather your personal decision to disregard aspects of the OT.

rumborak

[Adami]

Jesus however also said he does not negate the old law. So, it's rather your personal decision to disregard aspects of the OT.

rumborak

In this case it's the interpretation of 99% of christians. Not just RockinRobby.

[rumborak]

If it was the actual interpretation of 99% of all Christians, how come this country has waged almost continuous war since its inception?

rumborak

[Adami]

If it was the actual interpretation of 99% of all Christians, how come this country has waged almost continuous war since its inception?

rumborak

Well I still argue that most wars have nothing to do with religion, even if they use religion as a front.

[rumborak]

That depends on how you define the "reason" for a war. Is it the ulterior motive of the leader that instigated the war, or is it the reason stated to get public support?

rumborak

[Adami]

That depends on how you define the "reason" for a war. Is it the ulterior motive of the leader that instigated the war, or is it the reason stated to get public support?

rumborak

Fair point. But these wars would have happened with or without religion. And if by this country, I assume you mean America.....which wars had much to do with christianity? Revolutionary War? Civil War? WWI? WWII? Vietnam? Korea?

[jammindude]

Jesus however also said he does not negate the old law. So, it's rather your personal decision to disregard aspects of the OT.

rumborak

But Paul clarifies this.  The law stands *FULFILLED*... 

The only interpretation possible that harmonizes *the whole of Scripture* (that is, the sayings of the OT, the sayings of Jesus, and the writings of Paul...all of which come ultimately from God), is that the Law stands as a fulfilled contract.   Jesus fulfilled the requirements of the Law. 

If you have a contract to build a building...and then you finish building it...you don't *keep* building after it's finished.    It is still there as a reference....so in that way, it is not negated.   But because it is fulfilled we are no longer held to its standard.   

[rumborak]

That depends on how you define the "reason" for a war. Is it the ulterior motive of the leader that instigated the war, or is it the reason stated to get public support?

rumborak

Fair point. But these wars would have happened with or without religion. And if by this country, I assume you mean America.....which wars had much to do with christianity? Revolutionary War? Civil War? WWI? WWII? Vietnam? Korea?

Btw, I'm not saying that America's wars were based on religion. But if the argument here is that the correct interpretation of Jesus teaching is to never pick up a weapon, then the only conclusion can be that Christianity is rather useless as a moral code. There's been so many wars, and Christians shoot each other every day in this country.

rumborak

[jammindude]

If it was the actual interpretation of 99% of all Christians, how come this country has waged almost continuous war since its inception?

rumborak

Well, it certainly was not because they were following the commandments of Christ...   I can only show you that many so-called "Christians" have been disobeying scripture...beyond that, you will have to draw your own conclusions.   

Obviously, since Jesus said that many would *claim* to be following him, but not following his father's commands...we have a guide in God's Word to separate actual Christians from false Christians.   

The Bible is the yard stick...if any group is not following the commands of Christ, then they cannot be (by definition) "Christian".   Therefore...according to Scripture...the Crusades were not carried out by actual Christians.  The Inquisition was not carried out by actual Christians.  And so on, and so forth....

[yeshaberto]

I would have to disagree, though, simply based on Romans 13.  The government does not bear the sword in vain, and is given its authority by God as an executor of revenge.

The government is given authority to keep the peace.  But since Christians were to be no part of the world, and held no government office...this simply applied to Christians to *be respectful to the governments.*   They were not a part OF the governments. 

It is a well documented fact that the first century Christians would not hold any public office, and would NOT join the Army...even if the punishment for refusal was death. 

So yes, God authorizes governments to bear the sword to keep the peace...but then he orders Christians to not be any part of that governmental system.

I am unfamiliar with the "order" for Christians not to be part of the government.  do you have a passage in mind?

[rumborak]

If it was the actual interpretation of 99% of all Christians, how come this country has waged almost continuous war since its inception?

rumborak

Well, it certainly was not because they were following the commandments of Christ...   I can only show you that many so-called "Christians" have been disobeying scripture...beyond that, you will have to draw your own conclusions.   

Obviously, since Jesus said that many would *claim* to be following him, but not following his father's commands...we have a guide in God's Word to separate actual Christians from false Christians.   

The Bible is the yard stick...if any group is not following the commands of Christ, then they cannot be (by definition) "Christian".   Therefore...according to Scripture...the Crusades were not carried out by actual Christians.  The Inquisition was not carried out by actual Christians.  And so on, and so forth....

Just to get this straight then, essentially you're the only Christian?
I almost want to edit the Wikipedia entry on the word "Christian" to say

"A Christian is a person who says he is part of a large group of like minded people, but at the same time denies almost all of them the right to be called Christian".

rumborak

[Adami]

Oh, I'm glad you've just cleared any Christians of any wrong doing what so ever.

In that case, REAL Muslims aren't waging any ways or killing anyone. REAL Americans have never led a war etc etc.

The inquisition, the crusades etc etc were carried out by Christians, whether you like that or not. Misguided Christians? Sure. But Christians none the less.

[jammindude]

I would have to disagree, though, simply based on Romans 13.  The government does not bear the sword in vain, and is given its authority by God as an executor of revenge.

The government is given authority to keep the peace.  But since Christians were to be no part of the world, and held no government office...this simply applied to Christians to *be respectful to the governments.*   They were not a part OF the governments. 

It is a well documented fact that the first century Christians would not hold any public office, and would NOT join the Army...even if the punishment for refusal was death. 

So yes, God authorizes governments to bear the sword to keep the peace...but then he orders Christians to not be any part of that governmental system.

I am unfamiliar with the "order" for Christians not to be part of the government.  do you have a passage in mind?

Maybe "order" is the wrong word...and if I misspoke again, I apologize.      It's really an amalgamation of several scriptural principles, and then looking into the established history of how the *first century* Christians (the ones who actually knew and walked with Christ and/or his 12 apostles) applied those principles.    After the death of the Apostle John (the last living apostle...who died in approximately 100 C.E....a very short time after writing the Revelation and the three letters bearing his name) everything went south, and Christianity immediately deviated from what Christ taught.   John even hinted that he could already see it starting to happen when he was alive.    But I digress. 

It had to do with Jesus continually saying to be "no part of the world"...his example of refusal to get involved in any politics...and his commandments to never take up the sword.   Turn your cheek toward your enemy, and pray for those persecuting you.   All these principles cannot be harmonized with the idea of joining the Army.   Jesus set the example, and we must follow that example.    The first century Christians followed these commandments to the letter.

[jammindude]

Oh, I'm glad you've just cleared any Christians of any wrong doing what so ever.

In that case, REAL Muslims aren't waging any ways or killing anyone. REAL Americans have never led a war etc etc.

The inquisition, the crusades etc etc were carried out by Christians, whether you like that or not. Misguided Christians? Sure. But Christians none the less.

FALSE Christianity is guilty of many...many...many crimes against humanity.  I will say that.   False religion is the cause so much bloodshed it's sickening.