Sure, but he still didn’t try to overthrow his king.
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Meat Limits of Christian rules
- Thread starter MemeFan
- Start date
Ok. I’ll concede the semantics.WTF?
Your point:
My point.
You literally said they didn't revolt, I said they did. We literally disagree.
From here:
So revolt, by english dictionary, allows posibility of nonviolent resistence and refusing to do what law says.
- intransitive verb To oppose or refuse to accept something.
- noun An act of protest or rejection.
So when early Americans refused to pay Stamp tax before Independence war, was that revolt too? Yes.
Yes, revolt isn’t always violent. It’s sometimes civil disobedience.
I was using it in relation to violent revolution ala the American Revolution. That’s the topic of this section of the thread.
Now Im done with you.
Think again... by my action I would be obedient to the Word of God and I would be following the example of Jesus Christ. Romans 13:7 Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor. Your logic is leading you astray.
Killing political dissidents is form of murder which requires death penalty which requires killing ruler.
Nothing is lacking. Real reason political leaders are "sort of limits" is to avoid civil war which can easily cause way worse situation.
Just check Libya and Iraq after removing "bad dictators".
How?
I already said Jesus has decided He had more important work than preaching anti-tax. Maybe Paul decided the same?
Breaking deal with colonists and then imposing his own rules is enough.
All political systems are maintained throught threat of violence including killing those who disagree.
Why do you think states keep police and army? For benefit of citizens? LOL, citizens can also pay private armed forces or self organize. Mercenaries and militia are old as history.
No, real reason is for benefit of state. If You Take the King's Shilling, You Do the King's Bidding:
So, English king and Parliaments decided to change term of political deal, didn't ask colonists for approval* and then threatend with violence for refusal to obey. Why do think fines and prison is imposed? And if you refuse, will state security services use violence over you? Yes.
Doing same as dictatorship.
I only treat politicians same as regular people. Regulars can't steal or/and murder, nor can threat both. Yet, somehow politicans have special priviliges because basic human morality doesn't apply to them.
There is Scripture says some group is above theft and murder?
Do you realize some here are best targets for establishment of dictatorship over them? I personally would just slighty over time change "social contract" for my benefits only. I'm certain some would even accept sending their daughter to my harem and paying for her expenses.
Off course, nothing better than Romans 13 to smooth common sense detecting scam and unfairness. Lord says I must suffer.
*Why do you think phrase was made: No taxation without representation
David decides to wait on Lord.
Maybe he should have killed Saul and spare all Israelis who died in battle where Saul killed himself.
Did you ever read Psalm 82? Why are we called elohim?
Yes.
But trust is also important.
What matters is what is in heart of asker. And some critiques are for benefits of artists.
But you didn't answer them. So you keep in theories, while avoiding practicalities.
Maybe first and most important role. But is it only one?
I don't believe you have zero friends.
I don't assume equality with God. He said we are His family which naturally implies some benefits. I just count those benefits to be true.
No, asking isn't nagging. Seeking understanding isn't nagging.
Here is another practical question? Why is pork banned in Old Testament?
If reason is consuming lots of water, that ban makes sense in arid environment, but not in tropics.
If reason is disease, then learning how no get infected by swine parasites stops reason for ban.
If reason is something else, then maybe ban is still valid now.
See, sometimes Lord's commands aren't universal throught time and space. There is no need for ban if reason for ban doesn't exist anymore. It's also such situation which call for deeper understanding.
I do not see psalm 82 speaking about men there.
Okay. And why would you choose to serve a God you didn't trust? I choose to serve one I trust.
Now you are trying to justify critiquing God. What do you think your critique will improve in his perfect creation?
An artist will willingly accept critique from someone with more skill or experience as a whole or in a technique. Some person who has little to no experience critiquing is insulting at best.
No I didn't, I could and do have a biblical based opinion on these matters but it is not my place as a woman to decide. A man, as the head of his household gets to make the moral judgment on this. My belief is to align with my husbands decision.
You have just proven my point. If my family is my most important one my sphere of influence to shine my light into will be about the same no matter where I live. friends,church, chosen community, and people interacted in stores, etc going about daily life.
Your language in prior posts assume privilege beyond biblical promise and on par with at least Jesus, thus with God.
The way you describe it fits into my definition of nagging. To each their own.
This is actually not something I loose sleep over. We choose not to eat pork. So the why is irrelevant.
So you tell me. You claim to know what Jesus was thinking so you must know what Paul was thinking. I can only look on the outward but you claim to know what only God knows. Amazing!
Jesus never preached an anti-tax sermon. At least nothing in Scripture would illustrate this.
Jesus had a message and He stuck to it. Which to me makes MemeFan's comment true:
This is a logical statement and a logical conclusion based on what we know of Jesus through Scripture.
I conclude from Lord's behaviour.
I claim, as have from, probably my whole time here, is that Jesus is anarchno-capitalist for human-human relationship with slight possible exception for husband and wife relationship.
Basic of anarchno - capitalism: private property plus NAP (non-aggression principle).
So, when did He supported mandatory public property (proof He is against private property) or allowed someone to break NAP?
Classic behaviour consistent with NAP:
Luk 9:52 - And sent messengers before his face: and they went, and entered into a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him.
Luk 9:53 - And they did not receive him, because his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem.
Luk 9:54 - And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?
Luk 9:55 - But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.
Luk 9:56 - For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.
Forbidding to force to spread faith or to punish unbelievers is to exactly what NAP says to do.
But there are judges there. And we will judge angels are per 1 Cor 6:2. So gods from psalm 82 could be humans.
But real question is how much Lord trust you.
There are people bad with money so Lord has to save them financial troubles every month. Do you want "finances savings" to be your most important impression in Lord's mind about you?
Or maybe something better?
Yes, it could be better as Lord Himself implies.
If our bodies now are perfect, then they couldn't be made better and there is no need for new bodies.
Yet, why are we they promised new bodies?:
35 Powerful Bible Verses About New Body In Heaven (With Commentary) - The Bible Christian
As Christians, we often think about what happens after we leave this world. One exciting promise in the Bible is the idea of receiving a new body in heaven.
thebiblechristian.com
Spirit of critiques matter most.
Because Lord says so:
John 1:12
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
And Jesus is son too. So by Lord Himself, Jesus is my brother. Helllo.
Since Jesus is firstborn son, He has some extra duties and benefits.
Again spirit matters. Nagging women ask for herself, not how to be most of service.
Since you see yourself as women of service to your husband, when was last time you asked your husband how can you be more helpful?
Imagine asking same question every week and doing whatever it takes to raise your service quality.
How can that be nagging?
It matters. How do you explain to your children why some other Christians eat pork and your don't? Somebody must have false beliefs.
Jesus wasn't anti-tax, He paid the temple tax even though He didn't have to. What was on His mind is pure speculation.
Yes, the heavy taxation was coming from the Romans and they weren’t his target audience.
He was preaching to the Jews and told them that if a soldier were to compel them to carry his gear for a mile, that they should carry it for two miles instead. How is that not a form of taxation?
David's mere existence posed a threat of overthrow to Saul.
1 Samuel 18:6-9
When the men were returning home after David had killed the Philistine, the women came out from all the towns of Israel to meet King Saul with singing and dancing, with joyful songs and with timbrels and lyres. As they danced, they sang: "Saul has slain his thousands, and David his tens of thousands." Saul was very angry; this refrain displeased him greatly. "They have credited David with tens of thousands," he thought, "but me with only thousands. What more can he get but the kingdom?" And from that time on Saul kept a close eye on David.
The people were with David.
Now, since Saul was the king didn't David have an obligation to submit to Saul and present himself for execution?
That's what we're talking about here, total submission to government.
I'm simply trying to establish that government must rule with the consent of the governed. And that when a government becomes a curse to its own people then it is the duty of the people to overthrow that government and establish a just government.
Unless you are in the heavenly right now it is not talking about you or humans.
To much is given, much is required. I don't get to judge Gods trust level of me. I can just do my best to steward what God places in my life. That does grow over time and as relationship with Him and obedience to Him grows.
Or maybe something better?
Yes, it could be better as Lord Himself implies.
If our bodies now are perfect, then they couldn't be made better and there is no need for new bodies.
Yet, why are we they promised new bodies?:
35 Powerful Bible Verses About New Body In Heaven (With Commentary) - The Bible Christian
As Christians, we often think about what happens after we leave this world. One exciting promise in the Bible is the idea of receiving a new body in heaven.
God created man perfect in human format creation. Sin caused that perfect image to become fallen. Heavenly bodies are promised to bring us back to creation ideal in a non physical form.
None of this Implies lack of perfection in Gods design. So no input of yours is wanted or needed to Improve anything.
No. A critique from someone who isn't on equal or better skill level is never a compliment or taken as something other insulting.
The Bible does not support the idea that men are equal to Christ; rather, it distinguishes between equality of status and equality of nature.
- Equality in Redemption: The Bible teaches that believers are equal before God as fellow heirs and children, but this is a relationship of adoption, not ontological equivalence. Galatians 3:28 states, "There is neither... male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus," emphasizing unity and shared access to salvation rather than identical status.
- Distinction from Christ: Theological consensus and scripture affirm that while believers are co-heirs (Romans 8:17), they remain distinct from Christ, who is the Lord and Savior. The concept of being "brothers" refers to familial relationship and shared spiritual life, not equality with the divine.
- Hierarchical Unity: Some interpretations note that equality in Christ does not erase all distinctions; just as Christ submits to God while being equal to Him, believers are equal in worth but may have different roles or submit to Christ’s authority.
What you described in the above example is not nagging. It is asking What is needed to do to serve better.
The examples you have been giving involve needing to understand Why and for what reason the request is being made. It is nagging because understanding what needs to be done is needed. To need to know why and what purpose it serves is not.
The bible states not to eat pork. We choose to take that and teach it literally. Others do not and choose to eat/not to obey. It isis not a salvific issue.
Last edited:
I can't reply to this better than this:
Perhaps men were not equal to Jesus, but quite clearly Jesus made the effort to be equal to men.
I agree that Jesus took on all aspects of our humanity. Thus being equal with men in being a human as much as we are. He was also more. The inverse doesn't carry over, that men get to take on in equality His divine attributes. Outside of the salvation and life to come promised all believers.
Last edited: