Summer Wonderland at BEL

[Nightsongs]

"Churches played a major role in the underground railroad helping black slaves to escape to the north. Were those churches out of God's will because emancipation was a political issue?"

I don't play into your "trap" questions. The question is loaded or worded is such a way that a YES or NO answer puts the outcome as in favor of your faulty position. This is an "Enyart" technique. A deceitful one, but a technique used in "winning" the debate, but in reality, losing & denying the Biblical truth.

The purpose and goal of the local assembly is to study God's Word, grow in faith, preach the gospel to the lost, and fellowship.

"Did the Christians who hid Jews from the Germans sin because such actions fought against the political desires of Germany?"

NO

You obfuscated on yet another question of mine. I proved to you that you have an incorrect assumption about me. I have no desire to criticize the lifestyle of Christians who are not active in social issues. Yet you criticize me for being active. Why are you so arrogant about criticizing my activist lifestyle when I am not critical of your lifestyle?

You promote this man "Bob Enyart" of whom is quite notorious for criticizing the lifestyle of Christians who are not active is social issues. I have listened to radio broadcasts where he openly mocks those who claim it is "not their job" to do so. He makes it quite clear that those who do nothing when it comes to activism and government are guilty and wrong.

He drags Christians through the mud who do not get involved in social issues and politics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZqDDZhBRgI

Burning $16,000 worth of OJ stuff. This is how one glorifies God? This is how one uses God's money? This is how one promotes the gospel of Jesus Christ? This is how one is a good steward of money? This is how one follows Corinthians 10:31? This is how one does not cause people to stumble? This is how one in "all things do for the glory of God"? Was God glorified when His name was invoked and then $16,000 was burnt and destroyed in front of people while wearing shirts that promote a twisted government theology?

As I said before. Your whole theology is built upon faulty foundation. You mix in some dispensational theology but then contaminate the rest with improper doctrine and twisted theology.

 

[Stripe]

I don't play into your "trap" questions.

:rotfl:

 

[Wamba]

You have posted several times and are ignoring me. Please address my post.

QUESTION FOR YOU -

If you saw a man come up from behind a little 5-year girl with a raised knife with a clear intent to murder her, knowing that you would have to use deadly force (shoot him) to stop him, would you use deadly force to prevent a murder?

Yes. I would.

WAMBA just admitted to the following -

Um... no. That's actually not true. I didn't say that. Please do not lie.

If WAMBA saw a man come up from behind a little 5-year girl with a raised knife with a clear intent to murder her, knowing that he would have to use deadly force (shoot him) to stop him, WAMBA would NOT use deadly force to prevent the murder of that child.

The reason WAMBA would not is the he believes that
you would be effectively doing his job for him but better. The murdered would now be a martyr. It is better for the murderer to stab and murder the 5 year old girl.

Stabbings are not glorified in our culture. No one says that it's okay to stab little girls. However, many people do say that it is okay to have an abortion. So your point is just a huge fallacy. Killing the man about to stab the girl will not cause more stabbings in the future. And also, if you killed that man, you would not be a vigilante.

Assassinating an abortionist will make him seem a hero; stopping a man from stabbing a little girl will not make that man seem a hero.

See the difference, and how you perhaps need to think through your point better?

WAMBA would as hard as he can to talk to the murderer, even the murderer is 100% intent in killing the 5-year old girl, but using deadly force to stop the murder of the 5-year girl would only set everyone back years.

WAMBA would stand there and watch as the murderer stabbed to death the 5-year old girl.

By your logic, we should be shooting the women going into the local Planned Parenthood, not trying to stop them from having abortions.


One last point, 100 babies on average are saved a year at the local Planned Parenthood in town, so no, women going into Planned Parenthood are not 100% set on having abortions.

 

[Stripe]

Nightsong gets his information from Comedy Central.

:rotfl:

 

[Nightsongs]

Was it wrong to murder the innocent before or after the Law was given? Was it right to stand up for the innocent before the law was given?

Murder, or the taking of ones life unjustly or without proper cause, was wrong before and after the law was given.

When the Angel of Death went around and killed the first-born male children in Egypt. A 1-month old, a 1 year old, 12 year old, and everything in between, were struck down dead in the homes of their parents. The 1 year old did nothing "wrong".

Were they innocent?

 

[Granite]

Murder, or the taking of ones life unjustly or without proper cause, was wrong before and after the law was given.

When the Angel of Death went around and killed the first-born male children in Egypt. A 1-month old, a 1 year old, 12 year old, and everything in between, were struck down dead in the homes of their parents. The 1 year old did nothing "wrong".

Were they innocent?

Seems like visiting the sins of the fathers on the children, wouldn't you say.

 

[Wamba]

Nightsongs, you have posted several times and are ignoring me. Please address my post.

QUESTION FOR YOU -

If you saw a man come up from behind a little 5-year girl with a raised knife with a clear intent to murder her, knowing that you would have to use deadly force (shoot him) to stop him, would you use deadly force to prevent a murder?

Yes. I would.

WAMBA just admitted to the following -

Um... no. That's actually not true. I didn't say that. Please do not lie.

If WAMBA saw a man come up from behind a little 5-year girl with a raised knife with a clear intent to murder her, knowing that he would have to use deadly force (shoot him) to stop him, WAMBA would NOT use deadly force to prevent the murder of that child.

The reason WAMBA would not is the he believes that
you would be effectively doing his job for him but better. The murdered would now be a martyr. It is better for the murderer to stab and murder the 5 year old girl.

Stabbings are not glorified in our culture. No one says that it's okay to stab little girls. However, many people do say that it is okay to have an abortion. So your point is just a huge fallacy. Killing the man about to stab the girl will not cause more stabbings in the future. And also, if you killed that man, you would not be a vigilante.

Assassinating an abortionist will make him seem a hero; stopping a man from stabbing a little girl will not make that man seem a hero.

See the difference, and how you perhaps need to think through your point better?

WAMBA would as hard as he can to talk to the murderer, even the murderer is 100% intent in killing the 5-year old girl, but using deadly force to stop the murder of the 5-year girl would only set everyone back years.

WAMBA would stand there and watch as the murderer stabbed to death the 5-year old girl.

By your logic, we should be shooting the women going into the local Planned Parenthood, not trying to stop them from having abortions.


One last point, 100 babies on average are saved a year at the local Planned Parenthood in town, so no, women going into Planned Parenthood are not 100% set on having abortions.

 

[chatmaggot]

Are you ever going to admit you were wrong about the 28 years and address my questions concerning Jeremiah 18?

Nice try on the Angel of death thing. Can't you just answer a question?

 

[Granite]

Are you ever going to admit you were wrong about the 28 years and address my questions concerning Jeremiah 18?

Nice try on the Angel of death thing. Can't you just answer a question?

The same could be asked of you.

 

[Nightsongs]

Seems like visiting the sins of the fathers on the children, wouldn't you say.

Yes, there is no doubt in my mind or my studies of God and the Bible, that children were punished by God for the sins of the parents.

This issue is brought-up and is a valid issue. Did God kill children for the sins of the father/parents?
The answer is a clear YES.

Here is the dilemma. One states:
"It is morally wrong to kill a child for the sins of the father."

But....God has killed children for the sins of the father, many times.

Then....Is God morally wrong?

 

[Nightsongs]

Nightsongs, you have posted several times and are ignoring me. Please address my post.

I will, I am just really busy and I only get time here and there to respond. I will answer it before the end of the day.

 

[Nightsongs]

Are you ever going to admit you were wrong about the 28 years and address my questions concerning Jeremiah 18?

Nice try on the Angel of death thing. Can't you just answer a question?

Open Theism has officially only been recognized as a theological position that can be explained coherently as of 1980.

There has been attempts made in the 1940's that resemble a distorted view of open theism. They didn't even know what to call it. It was not a coherent position.

As far as Jeremiah 18. I am not here to debate OT. I don't have the time and/or space to discuss on how OT is a heresy.

In regards to the "death angel". I am simply showing you that you ask loaded and faulty questions. Define "innocent" and then tell me if a 1 year old child is "innocent". If so, then the Angel of Death murdered innocent children. If not, then your question is faulty.

 

[chatmaggot]

Nightsongs;
As far as Jeremiah 18. I am not here to debate OT. I don't have the time and/or space to discuss on how OT is a heresy.

That is hilarious.

Why?

Because you went on and on about it here:

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1858140&postcount=21

Now you don't have the time and/or space to discuss one chapter in the Bible...yet you have repeatedly posted many many posts about other things.

 

[Delmar]

Yes, there is no doubt in my mind or my studies of God and the Bible, that children were punished by God for the sins of the parents.

This issue is brought-up and is a valid issue. Did God kill children for the sins of the father/parents?
The answer is a clear YES.

Here is the dilemma. One states:
"It is morally wrong to kill a child for the sins of the father."

But....God has killed children for the sins of the father, many times.

Then....Is God morally wrong?

Thanks for removing Christian from your profile. It really is important to know who we are talking to!

 

[Nightsongs]

Thanks for removing Christian from your profile. It really is important to know who we are talking to!

Here is a riddle for you batman -

One states:
"It is morally wrong to kill a child for the sins of the father."

But....God has killed children for the sins of the father, many times. (Angel of Death, The Flood, Amorite's, Canaanite's, Hittite's, etc, etc)

Then....Is God morally wrong?


The answer is simple if you let go of your bad theology & stop following a man and accept God at His Word.

 

[The Graphite]

:deadhorse:

 

[Servo]

Nightsong's motives on this thread aside, I think he raises a really thought-provoking idea. If I know for a fact that someone is in my neighbor's house and is about to murder him/her, should I do whatever it takes to stop the crime? If my neighbor is, himself, a murderer and brings someone I don't know into his house in order to murder that person, should I do whatever it takes to stop the crime?

I think the answer to both of these questions is YES.

Should abortion mills be different? I'm not advocating bombing them, or killing an abortionist. But I have to ask myself: What's the difference? I can't say: "I shouldn't do it because it would be illegal trespassing." That wouldn't stop me in the example of my neighbor above. I can't say: "Killing the abortionist is, itself, a crime." That wouldn't stop me in the case of my neighbor above.

Again, I'm not advocating anything here. I'm just saying it's very thought-provoking. Maybe I'm missing something that makes it not so difficult, too. Because it really seems like a dilemma to me.

Don't know if this link has been posted yet, but check this out:

http://www.kgov.com/writings/abortion_vigilantism_worksheet

 

[Servo]

Burning $16,000 worth of OJ stuff. This is how one glorifies God? This is how one uses God's money? This is how one promotes the gospel of Jesus Christ? This is how one is a good steward of money? This is how one follows Corinthians 10:31? This is how one does not cause people to stumble? This is how one in "all things do for the glory of God"? Was God glorified when His name was invoked and then $16,000 was burnt and destroyed in front of people while wearing shirts that promote a twisted government theology?

The people who donated knew what the money was going to be spent on and it also brought in untold amounts of publicity (see, even you know about it) which helped further one of the causes of the ministry which is to teach people the difference between right and wrong. Letting a murderer go is wrong BTW...

 

[chickenman]

Don't know if this link has been posted yet, but check this out:

http://www.kgov.com/writings/abortion_vigilantism_worksheet

Thanks, Servo. TG posted it, too. Haven't had a chance to check it out yet, but I will.

Is that okay with you, Boss Granite?

 

[Nightsongs]

The people who donated knew what the money was going to be spent on and it also brought in untold amounts of publicity (see, even you know about it) which helped further one of the causes of the ministry which is to teach people the difference between right and wrong. Letting a murderer go is wrong BTW...

That doesn't make what he did with that money and the latter public display of stupidity of destroying the property, a Biblical thing.

If you think his actions were Biblically sound. Then you sir, are seriously blinded by man and have deserted God and His Word and follow man. I pray for you that your eyes would be opened.

What was wrong was taking money and burning it. That he did it in the name of God. What was wrong was that money could have been spent for the Lord's Work and not for "publicity" for Enyart's cause. What was wrong was that he made believers and unbelievers stumble by his actions. That he invoked the name of God and claimed he was doing a Godly thing.

I can go on and on but it seems you are impervious to the truth & reality.