Greek2me

dancing, It's not about whether people are considered a valuable asset to the discussion. Not all discussions require input from all people. I think it's a msitake to think otherwise. If the government were to be run like a school board or town meeting, could you imagine the difficulties it would involve in a situation that required real-time decision making and action?Such a concept is simply not feasible, nor is it Biblical. Responsibility, in part, was transferred to those who were selected to perform the administrative tasks. When it was made known to Moses that he should have help governing the Israelites, he was told to find some men to help him in the work. Those men had to meet certain criteria. Deut. 1:13-17 Take you wise men, and understanding, and known among your tribes, and I will make them rulers over you. And ye answered me, and said, The thing which thou hast spoken is good for us to do. So I took the chief of your tribes, wise men, and known, and made them heads over you, captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, and captains over fifties, and captains over tens, and officers among your tribes. And I charged your judges at that time, saying, Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him. Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God's: and the cause that is too hard for you, bring it unto me, and I will hear it. This, as near as I can tell, is the first sharing of governmental responsibilities (excluding Aaron who shared priestly duties.) One could say that this is the first government expansion. The men involved in the government were to be wise, have understanding and be known among the people. It is certain that it was still what we call a Theocracy, in that, "the judgement is God's." =========== Mark, I don't know if we need to look at each one as it's one thread, but I do want to look at a couple of the points you posted. I think they are very valid points to discuss. I would think that social assistance programs, Biblically speaking, fall under the jurisdiction of the Church, not any government agency. When Jesus fed the 5,000 it was not society at large but people who were there listening to Him. Whether they were Christians or not He, at least, didn't differentiate or exclude. Everyone there was fed. Then again, He didn't tax all the people to feed some of the people as do governments today. In Acts, when the Apostles needed help in the ministration to the people, some of the women weren't getting their share. The context, though, is the Church, not a secular government. Acts 6:3-6 Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch: Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them. This similarites between the qualification of this group and the group that Moses chose is striking. Again, the government here is the governing of the Church, not secular governments as we know them today. I think it's when the Israelites desired to be like the other nations (gentiles, who had kings) is when taxation, punishment of crime and certain "rights" came to be realised. (more on this tomorrow or monday) One subject on the list is extremely clear. Only self-justifiers would find a way to circumvent the paying of taxes. Jesus could not have been more clear than to say what He did with regard to the paying of taxes. Matt 22:19-22 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way. As a taxpayer, obviously, I want to pay as little as possible. As a citizen, I want the government to use as little as possible. As a Christian, I pay all that is required. Perhaps you're right, Mark, about each one on the list needing a seperate thread. Having given some thought to crime and punishment I can see how that con lead to a huge discussion on it's own. Shall we look at them one at a time?

To those that want to see me as trying to be exclusive or devisive or any other "ive"... so be it. I suppose you didn't see my comment to Sir guess about expanding on one of his comments? It was genuine, as was my comment about excluding yourself from a discussion that, in essence, doesn't pertain to you. (non-Christians, that is.) I wonder. Why would you participate in a doctrinal discussion, especially one that has the title this thread does, if you are not a Christian? If you think the words "spiritually minded" are for just anyone and any set of beliefs, then you misunderstood the intent of this thread. Now, is that being elitist or exclusive? Hardly. If you think otherwise then, well, you think otherwise. ============= Dancing, Well, enlighten us then. You missed what I said to Joey earlier in that I agree that those things said by Paul were adressed to the chruch and not governement directives. Likewise, the things that the liberally minded Christians cite or point to in an attempt to "prove" their spirituality are also directed to the Church, not society as a whole. Those who seem to go on and on about separation of Church and State are quite content, seemingly, to follow Christs teaching to His followers (as long as it's done in government program). Who's misunderstanding who? I couldn't exclude someone from discusions in these threads if I tried. No wars. Just didn't see anything that warranted a response. Maybe I did miss something.========== Mark, Exactly, this is what I want to get at from a Scriptural basis. More tomorrow. ========== Danny, Very well said. Haven't ever thought of it that way. Certainly, Jesus grew up in a politically turbulent time. Care to share anything in relation to what Mark posted? Were the issues of His time here on earth so different from the issues of today?

Danny, Points 1-5 I'm not so sure they play such an important role in the topic at hand. Point 6. I agree. I don't see dispensations in the way TWI taught. In fact I see such teaching as simply worng, if not destructive. #7 This discussion isn't about Jesus Christs political leanings. It's meant to be about whether a spiritually minded Christian would see the world through a more liberal or more conservative political lens, and if there is Scriptural evidence to support said views. #8 I agree. We are not dealing with America or Australia or any other country per se. We are dealing with individuals and their personal beliefs. That said, The Scriptures don't change. What was right and just when Christ spoke to those then, is right and just now. Sir guess, Wow, I would disagree. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever. He hasn't changed, nor will He. The only way to be "too far removed from their roots" is to be too far removed from THE root. I agree. No one is trying to tag anyone. I'm not trying to convince anyone I'm right and they're wrong. This is an honest attempt at a dialogue about a subject that could use a hefty dose of honesty and humility in it's approach. Care to elaborate on the 4 partial systems? No offence, but Jesus can hardly be called an "infamous kid from Galilee." If that's all you think of Him, then you should exclude yourself from further discussion of this topic.

Mark, Eureka! Very well said. That's why I stated at the end of the first post that said programs or government directives may at first glance seem to be the right thing to do, but in reality are an immeasurable evil. When I said this, I was speaking from a family value perspective. I wonder if there are statistics that document the demise of the family in correlation with government social programs? I wouldn't be surprised if there were. I agree. Danny, Plenty to chew on. I'll get to it shortly.

Joey, That's the point... exactly! To me, it seems those that are liberally minded politically see the words of Jesus 'feed the poor, heal the sick' etc. as directives to form government programs to do said acts and NOT the church. In fact, one poster in the other forum used the above words to say that Jesus would be considered a liberal today. The words Paul wrote to the Thessalonians are directed to the Church. Period. According to the opinions stated by the liberally minded, that's exactly what the 'religious right' is doing when, in fact, it is the liberals who have removed Church doctrine and applied it to society as a whole. (feed the poor, heal the sick)As far as your hypothetical goes... I only have one word to say. Family... in the truest sense of the word, not a politically defined term of convenience and appeasement. My question is this; if it's ok for the one to be removed form the historical/ecclesiastical context, why isn't, (or shouldn't) it be ok for the other? Absolutely. At the same time, He doesn't say set up a government scheme to allow the sun to shine. Yes, the rain falls on the just and unjust and yes, everyone who is justified by the blood of Christ was just as unjust as the unjust. The questions remain; would a spiritually-minded Christian be more likely to be a liberal politically speaking, or conservative? And What Scriptural evidence is there to support one way or the other?

This thread is, (more or less) in response to a thread started by Groucho in the politics and 'tacks section. Some believe a spiritually minded Christian is as likely (if not more likely) to be liberally minded politically. I contend that this is simply not so. In fact, I hold the belief that a spiritually minded Christian would be more conservative in their political beliefs. As proof, I offered the stark contrast between the liberally minded political idea of a government welfare program and the spiritually minded directive to the Church from the Apostle to the Gentiles, Paul, which states; "that if any man not work, neither should he eat." SO...... The purpose of this thread is to examine, Scripturally, those things that would fall under duties and responsibilities of Christians in this present evil world as pertains those things that would fall under what we refer to as politics. To start, I would like to answer a portion of a post by Mstar, who suggested we take this discussion to the doctrine section. So here it is. Mstar, I appreciate the heart of your post in the politics thread, but I really must disagree. Surely you understand that these things were said to Christians NOT governments. They are not political positions to be adopted by one side or the other. They are not to be used as photo-ops. I mean, I don't think of Jesus when I see Sean Penn sinking in his boat in New Orleans trying to save some people with his personal photographer.I see hypocrisy. And you base this thought on that which Jesus teaches His followers? If that were the case, then you and Groucho advocate "Christian nationalism." The very thing Groucho seems to think the politcal right is up to. Which, by the way, is it? To think the US has the technology, resources and capability to end world hunger is wrong, if not down right arrogantly wrong. What's more, seemingly political liberals at the time of Jesus thought it would be good to sell the expensive ointment ultimately used for His burial to give to the poor. It seemed good, right? After all, helping the poor is the right thing to do, right?How did Jesus react? Did He advocate a new governement policy - or a war on poverty citing the resources to wipe it out? Did He say anything about taxing Israelites to provide improved health care for the world? No. Not, by a long shot. He said, "For ye have the poor with you always,..." Again though, His comments were adressed to those that believe, NOT governments. He never once advocated or adressed ANY governement policy As far as cutting off people... well, consider the following said by none other than the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. It is in DIRECT CONTRAST to liberal political ideas. DIRECT CONTRAST! Luke 19:26,27 26For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him. 27But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. See that? It seems so unfair liberally speaking. Conservatively speaking, it screems justice! At last. Justice! The concept of entitlement is a foreign object to a spiritually minded Christian. A few more thoughts.... from a very conservative pov. Moses and the Israelites lived in a Theocracy. Hardly a liberal political concept. Then there were the judges and continuation of Theocracy. Then there was the Kingdom - a far cry from liberal politics. Now, there is a Kingdom for Christians. In the future, some Christians will be made kings and rule with Christ during His millenial rule. Not very liberal, politically speaking, right? Finally, I would reiterate the following. I think it's a shame that the Church has not fulfilled it's duties as prescribed by it's Lord, Jesus Christ. As a member of said Church, I accept that I am as responsible for this failure as anyone else. I have not always lived my faith to its fullest. But, in no way can I advocate an attempt at fulfilling said duties by governments. Ever. The results, while temporarily (seemingly) beneficial, are ultimately an evil unimaginable.

Hey Pirate, UNC Asheville is a good little school... great setting tucked up there in the mountains. Plus, he gets the four seasons (unlike eastern's two and a half) and some great fall color. Send him to Asheville! He'll love it.

cheesey chickenhead mmmmmmmmmmmmmm..... sounds tasty and I'm hungry!

No questioin. Brian Denehey from the Rambo first blood years. As he is right now though, he could play my father...

Personally, I always thought LBJ had somekind of role to play in the whole thing. After all, he became president, he escalated the vietnam situation and a lot of people in the vast military industrial complex from the great state o' Tejas made lots and lots of money. I have no proof, mind you, but one conspiracy is as good as another, right?

Jack Nicholson to his captain in "the promise" when asked why he didn't just give up the case and enjoy his retirement. "Because I made a promise. You're old enough to remember what that is, aren't you?"

With your credentials you're a great candidate for a web based business. I've just started one and already i'm ranking number one for my specific keyword searches in Yahoo and MSN (google is sure to follow but takes a little more time). You can check out my site here... www.michigan-proficiency-exams.com (I haven't started monetizing it yet but I will when I have a few more pages up (around 50 or so) at the bottom of the page there is a link that says "powered by sitesell" press on it and you will end up at Sitesell.com... a great place to learn about doing business on the web. Good luck.

So what is it? The best line from a film that is. Of course, Rhett's "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn" has got to be up there as one of the tops but... Are there any others that are just as memorable? (or forgetttable) Personally, I love the line delivered by the old sergeant to a group of young officers after Mel Gibson's character in, "We were soldiers once," described how The Sioux indians would take a newborn male child around to all of the women of the tribe so that it could nurse. Then, all older women were referred to as "mother" and all the older warriors were referred to as "grandpa." The old sergeant looks around at the young officers and says,... "any you sonsa'bitches calls me grandpa... I'll kill ya" Classic! How about it? What's your favorites?

Saving Private Ryan? We were soldiers once - very underated imo. dazed and confused

My one experience with getting a weirwillite really upset is when I stopped referring to him as "DR" weirwille and started referring to him as "brother" weirwille. Talk about balistic! At the time, I had just taken Brother Leonard's gifts of the spirit course and learned much truth concerning spiritual matters. Of course, the things I learned were quite different from the things VPW taught, so this was tantamount to betrayal, getting spiritually "ripped off" and other cultish and meaninless catch / controlling phrases.

TWI teaching tapes? I know where there are about 600 or so (plus a bunch of books and classes including pifle) .... for free! All you got to do is get to Greece, go to the island of Thasos, make your way to the town dump just outside of Limenas, and start digging! Since its been 8 years or so I would think it won't take that long till you find what you're looking for. It only took me two trips to get rid of it all! Want to be really blessed? Seek God... just try it....no really,... just really, really, really, try it.

I knew I shouldn't have had that... &%$#@#!! last night. It went right through me! OR.... If you absolutely, positively have to use public toilets... make sure it's an elephant size sheet!

You need to play it backwards and listen to the back masking... it goes something like this i think... newa ed noom stih ed eye ikail gib azip which means... Ha, ha, ha,... you can't get this f**king song out your head!

Actually, I've had burnt toast stuffing once... it was killer! Great flavor! Just never got the recipe and I would like to turn the Greeks onto it :)

Greek salad dressing???? ... it's called it olive oil over here. BTW, does anyone have a good recipe for "burnt toast stuffing"? Oh, and how do you get it lit?

Hey guys, I haven't been a round for a while and thought I'd add my 2 cents. I can't believe there are still Mike - anigans going on. After all, he's been proven to be: 1. a lying, idolotrous troll of the lowest life form whose purpose is to spread the message that pfal is God breathed -which we all know that it isn't / wasn't, as has been proven now more times than anyone can count. After all, no one would make staments like - Jesus Christ is learning from pfal in heaven and will return to teach from it - UNLESS they were a.) mentally ill or b.) spirituallly influenced to put it mildly. Such a statement goes so far beyond ridiculous that I'm sure even he (somewhere deep down) knows how ludicrous it is. Think about it. Jesus Christ supposedly learning from a collection of false teachings and plagerized writings from a sinful, leacherous cultist. Jesus had a perfect, non- fallen nature of SIn, connection with the Father of spirits (unlike uncle vicster) and He's supposed to be learning from pfal? Wasn't it be revelation FROM JESUS CHRIST that Paul leaarned his gospel? If weirwille did indeed receive revelation who did he get revelation from if it wasn't Jesus Himself? I really doubt that Jesus Christ needs to learn ANYTHING from vpw. After all, didn't he know what was in man and had no need for anyone to tell Him? or 2. Completely, totally and unequivocally right and the rest of us are wrong and misguided and he, through and by the love of God, is here to save some of the misguided and ignorant. Mike, Go home. Stay away from here. I, for one, don't want you around anymore. Please leave. Take your message somewhere else. Think about it. There are converts just waiting to be had on other forums so why don't you spread that good news of yours to some new ears. Your years of effort here have netted you zero results. none. zip. nada. You're trying to sell refridgerators to eskimos. We don't need it and we sure as hell don't want it. To the rest of my fellow posters... sorry for the semi-rant, but enough is enough. Mike, why are you still reading this? I thought I told you to leave!

Now that's a mouthful! I can't stand teaching for testing, yet that seems to be the only real consideration when it comes to curriculum development, course material and acceptable lesson plans. The standard question is... how does this material relate to the _____ test? SafariVista, I have to disagree with you about the money statement. A very good book (imo) called, "The conspiracy of ignorance" - by Martin Gross, dispells the notion that money and classroom size (that which educators and politicians are most vocal about) have that much to do with results. International testing scores on subjects like maths have shown the States dead last (out of 39 countries) despite the fact that they spent nearly 7 times as much per year, per child, and had the smallest classroom size average (19) at the secondary level. Not surprisingly, or rather, unfortunately, the U.S. scored first on "self-esteem" tests taken before the actual academic tests were administered.

Seems to me that when the emphasis went from teaching children at that age the basics of acceptable school behavior... raise your hand when you want to talk, don't talk when others are, share, play nicely, say please and thank you and put things back where you found them to... "building self esteem"... We lost the whole ball game. Education in the States is on a horrible downward spiral thanks in no small part to... 1. The overwhelmingly phycologically based curriculum. 2. The pursuit of "building self esteem" instead of teaching the accumulation of facts. 3. The lack of corporal punishment in school. 4. The removal of prayer from the schools. (I'm sure this is an unpopular view) but I've worked in private and public schools (Christian and non-Christian) both in the States and in Greece and feel safe that I can make that statement. 5. The lack of parental care and co-operation with the teachers.

Ex 10, I don't pretend to answer for Jerry, but I do think you've raised some true concerns regarding this whole subject. If I may... No. If they were, then one's Christianity wouldn't be too Christ-like now would it? In fact, Jesus would have died in vain. In other words, Jesus didn't seem to be too offended by the women (prostitute?) who fell at his feet and washed them with her tears although the pharisees that were present were certainly offended. Some might find prostitution to be a particularly vile sin and disgraceful way to live and abhor those who are paid for sexual acts, much in the same way some find homosexuality to be a particularly vile sin and abhor those who perform or engage in such sexual acts. Either way, I think Jesus shows that he doesn't condemn, he forgives those who sin as is the case of the woman mentioned. However, he also admonishes this woman to "go, and sin no more". The true grace of God teaches us to deny ungodly lusts. As Jerry B. pointed out in his previous post, homosexuality is an ungodly lust. It is a sin. Sure it's not popular to say such things nowadays. Just because something is unpopular, however, it doesn't change the veracity of what is written about it. Just as your daughter may be put in situations that are unpopular (with the one group or the other) It shouldn't change the conviction of what she knows and believes to be true in heart. From what I've read, she seems to have a good head on her shoulders and she definitely has a mom that loves her and desires to give her sound, solid advice. At the end of the day, though, she's going to live her own life, make her own mistakes, and grow at her own pace. She'll be surprised in good ways and disappointed in others by friends as she goes through life... just like we all have. The Scriptures are full of answers as to how one is to conduct oneself in every conceivable situation. The golden rule covers most everything that I'm aware of, although there are times when something a little more specific might apply. Teaching our children to "do unto others" Is ceratinly a good place to start. Who knows, maybe she'll start a trend among her friends.

You know, in reading most of these posts I am reminded of something another "B.G." said. Brother Leonard said that until you've reached one more soul than Billy Graham has reached with the gospel, then you don't have the right to say anything about Billy Graham or lay anything at his feet. Sounded like good advice to me.