Deleted
TonyWalsham said:
David it wasn't me who raised the spectre of Adolf Hitler.You need to be very careful when making the bald faced statements you do.
Which leads me back to the original question I posed just a bit above.
I take it you now accept Hitler really was a Christian?Adolf Hitler was a Christian.
Adolf Hitler proposed the “final solution”.
You profess to be a Christian.
Does that mean as a Christian, you also propose a “final solution” for all Jews, Gypsies and undesirables?
Do you have proof of that, Tony? What parish did he attend on a regular basis? Or was it just Christmas, Easter, weddings and funerals (probably a lot of those, wink, wink).
Deleted
By that definition, Tony, you too, are Christian, as you have it in your heritage.
Tony, I am reluctant to answer anything you post as it ONLY serves to give you something else to criticize, but since it seems you are ignorant of Christianity and those that believe in God and Christ, I will make this exception.
A person is not born a Christian, like someone is born a British Subject, a Romanian or even Jewish. No one is a Christian by default (simply because they are not Muslim or Jewish).
One is ONLY a Christian when one decides to accept Jesus Christ as their Lord (Sovereign Authority) and Saviour (cleanses them of their sins). Believing in Jesus in not sufficient, the devil and probably even you believe in Jesus. Just as one can not be a car by sitting in a garage, one can not become a Christian by sitting in church.
Being a Christian is a lifestyle, not a title or nationality. For you to attempt to insult all Christians and/or Catholics by stating Adolph Hitler was a Christian, is beyond the pale, and you sir should be ashamed of yourself, if indeed you are capable of feeling shame.
Deleted
Deleted
David Hill said:David, a definition of what it is to be christian is given in the New Testament
....One is ONLY a Christian when one decides to accept Jesus Christ as their Lord (Sovereign Authority) and Saviour (cleanses them of their sins). Being a Christian is a lifestyle, not a title or nationality.....
Quote: “The New Testament gives a simple answer to the question who a Christian is: “Whoever claims to live in him [Jesus], must walk as Jesus did.” (1John 2:6)
A Christian follows the example of Jesus’s life in thankful obedience to God’s will.”
Now to ‘live in Him’ and proclaim yourself to be ‘christian’, how do you equate that with serving your country and taking human life, or even threatening human life, or cheating on taxes, or mistreating his wife or children or those around him (remember 'render to Caesar that which is Caesar’s")? To be christian is to follow the ways of the Lord. The holy texts would see that the only time that the Lord used force was to drive the moneylenders from the temple, as it was a ‘house of the Lord’ and not a place of business. Jesus did not go to war or strike another human in carrying out his ministry. If one chooses to stray from the ‘path’ then how is he able to call himself a christian. Being a christian is not a matter of convenience, when it suits a person to be a christian. The whole point of being a christian is not just to practice your faith, but ‘walking in the steps of the Lord’ involving suffering and denial to achieve the aims of the faith. Too many choose a ‘designer’ religion, in name only and change as the fashion changes. Until you are prepared to deny physical and racial violence in the world, then how are you able to be a christian?
The original wording of your own constitution, in relation to bearing arms, made an exemption for those, who because of religious beliefs, were exempt from bearing arms. The senate deleted this wording, compelling all men to bear arms. I find it ambiguous that a constitution, based on human dignity, christianity and basic human rights, did not allow a man to follow his christian religious beliefs.
Quote: " No official records were kept of the committee’s proceedings, but the committee returned to the House a reworded version of the Second Amendment on July 28.[51] On August 17, that version was read into the Journal:
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.[52]
The Second Amendment was debated and modified during sessions of the House on August 17 and August 20.[53] These debates revolved primarily around risk of “mal-administration of the government” using the “religiously scrupulous” clause to destroy the militia as Great Britain had attempted to destroy the militia at the commencement of the American Revolution. These concerns were addressed by modifying the final clause, and on August 24, the House sent the following version to the U.S. Senate:
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
The next day, August 25, the Senate received the Amendment from the House and entered it into the Senate Journal. When the Amendment was transcribed, the semicolon in the religious exemption portion was changed to a comma by the Senate scribe:
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.[54]
On September 4, the Senate voted to change the language of the Second Amendment by removing the definition of militia, and striking the conscientious objector clause:
A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
David Hill said:
Tony, I am reluctant to answer anything you post as it ONLY serves to give you something else to criticize, but since it seems you are ignorant of Christianity and those that believe in God and Christ, I will make this exception.A person is not born a Christian, like someone is born a British Subject, a Romanian or even Jewish. No one is a Christian by default (simply because they are not Muslim or Jewish).
One is ONLY a Christian when one decides to accept Jesus Christ as their Lord (Sovereign Authority) and Saviour (cleanses them of their sins). Believing in Jesus in not sufficient, the devil and probably even you believe in Jesus. Just as one can not be a car by sitting in a garage, one can not become a Christian by sitting in church.
Being a Christian is a lifestyle, not a title or nationality. For you to attempt to insult all Christians and/or Catholics by stating Adolph Hitler was a Christian, is beyond the pale, and you sir should be ashamed of yourself, if indeed you are capable of feeling shame.
Catholics don’t insist on a conversion experience–they insist on belief and participation in the sacraments. You can be a Catholic simply by attending church and participating in the service. Are you saying Catholics are not Christians? They would take exception to that. Catholics and Episcopalians, among others, practice infant baptism which makes the infants Catholic (and christian) long before they can speak. They later confirm this belief at age 14-15.
Tim Brien said:David Hill said:David, a definition of what it is to be christian is given in the New Testament
....One is ONLY a Christian when one decides to accept Jesus Christ as their Lord (Sovereign Authority) and Saviour (cleanses them of their sins). Being a Christian is a lifestyle, not a title or nationality.....Quote: “The New Testament gives a simple answer to the question who a Christian is: “Whoever claims to live in him [Jesus], must walk as Jesus did.” (1John 2:6)
A Christian follows the example of Jesus’s life in thankful obedience to God’s will.”Now to ‘live in Him’ and proclaim yourself to be ‘christian’, how do you equate that with serving your country and taking human life, or even threatening human life, or cheating on taxes, or mistreating his wife or children or those around him (remember 'render to Caesar that which is Caesar’s")? To be christian is to follow the ways of the Lord. The holy texts would see that the only time that the Lord used force was to drive the moneylenders from the temple, as it was a ‘house of the Lord’ and not a place of business. Jesus did not go to war or strike another human in carrying out his ministry. If one chooses to stray from the ‘path’ then how is he able to call himself a christian. Being a christian is not a matter of convenience, when it suits a person to be a christian. The whole point of being a christian is not just to practice your faith, but ‘walking in the steps of the Lord’ involving suffering and denial to achieve the aims of the faith. Too many choose a ‘designer’ religion, in name only and change as the fashion changes. Until you are prepared to deny physical and racial violence in the world, then how are you able to be a christian?
The original wording of your own constitution, in relation to bearing arms, made an exemption for those, who because of religious beliefs, were exempt from bearing arms. The senate deleted this wording, compelling all men to bear arms. I find it ambiguous that a constitution, based on human dignity, christianity and basic human rights, did not allow a man to follow his christian religious beliefs.
Quote: " No official records were kept of the committee’s proceedings, but the committee returned to the House a reworded version of the Second Amendment on July 28.[51] On August 17, that version was read into the Journal:
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.[52]
The Second Amendment was debated and modified during sessions of the House on August 17 and August 20.[53] These debates revolved primarily around risk of “mal-administration of the government” using the “religiously scrupulous” clause to destroy the militia as Great Britain had attempted to destroy the militia at the commencement of the American Revolution. These concerns were addressed by modifying the final clause, and on August 24, the House sent the following version to the U.S. Senate:
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
The next day, August 25, the Senate received the Amendment from the House and entered it into the Senate Journal. When the Amendment was transcribed, the semicolon in the religious exemption portion was changed to a comma by the Senate scribe:
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.[54]
On September 4, the Senate voted to change the language of the Second Amendment by removing the definition of militia, and striking the conscientious objector clause:
A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
First of all Tim, Christian is a proper noun. Writing it in lower case to disparage others is beneath you.
US law allows "conscience objector"and religious deferments .
Here is what Jesus said:
Jesus and Nicodemus
1 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicode’mus, a ruler of the Jews:
2 the same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
4 Nicode’mus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?
5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
And this instructs Christians NOT to blindly follow Caesar.
Romans Chapter 13, verses 1 through 7, from the Authorized King James text:
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good.But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour."
"Virtually every apostle of Christ (except John, who survived being boiled in oil, according to historians) experienced martyrdom from hostile civil authorities. In addition, Christians throughout church history were imprisoned, tortured, or killed by civil authorities of all stripes for refusing to submit to their various laws and prohibitions. Did all of these Christian martyrs violate God’s principle of submission to authority?
So, even the great prophets, apostles, and writers of the Bible (including the writer of Romans Chapter 13) understood that human authority–including civil authority–is limited.
Plus, Paul makes it clear that our submission to civil authority must be predicated on more than fear of governmental retaliation. Notice, he said, “Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.” Meaning, our obedience to civil authority is more than just “because they said so.” It is also a matter of conscience. This means we must think and reason for ourselves regarding the justness and rightness of our government’s laws. Obedience is not automatic or robotic. It is a result of both rational deliberation and moral approbation.
As William Blackstone (as studied and devoted a Christian scholar as there ever was) wrote, “This law of nature, being co-eval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original.” (Source: William Blackstone, “Of The Nature of Laws in General”)
Therefore, there are times when civil authority must be resisted. Either governmental abuse of power or the violation of conscience (or both) could precipitate civil disobedience. Of course, how and when we decide to resist civil authority is an entirely separate issue. And I will reserve that discussion for another time.
Beyond that, we in the United States of America do not live under a monarchy. We have no king. There is no single governing official in this country. America’s “supreme Law” does not rest with any man or any group of men. America’s “supreme Law” does not rest with the President, the Congress, or even the Supreme Court. In America, the U.S. Constitution is the “supreme Law of the Land.” Under our laws, every governing official publicly promises to submit to the Constitution of the United States. Do readers understand the significance of this distinction? I hope so.
This means that in America the “higher powers” are not the men who occupy elected office, they are the tenets and principles set forth in the U.S. Constitution. Under our laws and form of government, it is the duty of every citizen, including our elected officials, to obey the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, this is how Romans Chapter 13 reads to Christians in America:"*
*Chuck Baldwin
David,
Quote: “Meaning, our obedience to civil authority is more than just “because they said so.” It is also a matter of conscience. This means we must think and reason for ourselves regarding the justness and rightness of our government’s laws. Obedience is not automatic or robotic. It is a result of both rational deliberation and moral approbation.”
So, by this, is the commentator implying that regardless of your duty as a christian, you have the option of relying, not on god’s will (Living in the way of the Lord), but on your interpretation of how good or bad a country’s laws may be? So your conscience is a better judge of right and wrong, as opposed to god’s teachings and supreme knowledge. In so far as submitting to Caesar, Jesus was asked whether men should pay taxes to Caesar. Jesus asked them as to whose image was on the coin. They replied “It is the image of Caesar”. The Lord replied, “Render to Caesar what is Caesars and to God, that which is Gods.”
When referring to upper case 'C’hristian or lower case 'c’hristian, if you go back over every posting that I have ever made, then I will use the lower case ‘christian’ to imply all christians, other than the true ‘Christians’ who were the original followers of Jesus Christ. These became Catholics and follow lineage back to the first pope, Peter. If referring to a god other than the true God, then I always use the lower case ‘god’ as these are usurper gods and not the true, one and only God, as followed by the Catholic Church. I am very pedantic when it comes to my use of capital ‘upper case’ letters, as to allocate a capital letter is a symbol of importance. I place no importance on lower case christians and their gods. I respect their wishes to live and embrace their gods and no doubt, my own true God has a place for them in heaven as he does for all those who follow him. I hope that is clear to you.
Deleted
Tony,
what would one expect from David. I do appreciate his tenacity and actually respect him for that, but he should place more thought into his postings. The New Testament refers to the early followers of Jesus Christ as Christians. At a later date they became known as ‘Catholics’ and have lineage directly linked to the first Pope, Peter, who Jesus personally appointed to form his Church on earth. The bible (New Testament) is very explicit on this point.
Later 'christians' can only trace their lineage back to their founding minister and in many cases, this did not occur until the last several hundred years. These christians claim the bible, but cannot prove lineage back to Jesus, as can the Catholics, who were the first 'Christians'. I would like to see how David claims lineage to Jesus. Most likely, his religion does not even recognise the Pope, but this is denial of the words of Jesus, as it was Jesus who appointed Peter as the first Pope.Tim Brien said:Are Australians folks who are second or third generation, and australians those that are naturalized immigrants or ONLY first born.
When referring to upper case 'C'hristian or lower case 'c'hristian, if you go back over every posting that I have ever made, then I will use the lower case 'christian' to imply all christians, other than the true 'Christians' who were the original followers of Jesus Christ. These became Catholics and follow lineage back to the first pope, Peter. If referring to a god other than the true God, then I always use the lower case 'god' as these are usurper gods and not the true, one and only God, as followed by the Catholic Church. I am very pedantic when it comes to my use of capital 'upper case' letters, as to allocate a capital letter is a symbol of importance. I place no importance on lower case christians and their gods. I respect their wishes to live and embrace their gods and no doubt, my own true God has a place for them in heaven as he does for all those who follow him. I hope that is clear to you.
Absurd.
TonyWalsham said:
Tim,David wrote: “…insult all Christians and/or Catholics by…”
Literally it reads “…insult all Christians and Catholics by…” or; “…insult all Christians or Catholics by…”
That directly implies that Catholics are not Christian.
Not all are.
Deleted
David,
Australians are any person who take Australian citizenship. We place no importance on natural born. We are a successful multi-cultural country and proud of our Indigenous, Anglo and ethnic cultures. Any person who is naturalised or ‘natural born’ is able to lead our country as the chosen leader of his political party. Being natural born or naturalised has absolutely nothing to do with the religion that one follows. All cultures are able to practice their own faith without hindrance. Our Parliament uses the Westminster System which dissociates church from state.
There is a catholic church and a Catholic Church. Lower case catholic means universal church, the believers as a whole. The FIRST Christian believers were actually Baptist. Peter was NOT the first pope.
I can respect my Catholic friends beliefs, but they differ in some ways from Christian faiths.
Deleted
Deleted