Search This Blog

Sunday, September 04, 2011

Deliver us from Evil - Identifying the evils of Darwinism - Islamic Terrorists, Christless Christianity

One thing any student of history knows well is that there was a European Colonial Period in which empire-building took place all over the world.   Nations like England and Spain and France and Belgium and Portugal and Germany and even Russia sought to increase their territories and build an ever-larger kingdom.   Many of the wars fought between these nations had to do with their spheres of influence outside of their own borders.  England was the most successful of these nations, for the phrase "The Sun never sets on the British Empire" was in fact true for many years. 

Christianity without Christ has been a silent partner with Darwinism, enabling the evils of Naturalism to spread and become popularized even amongst Christians.   This is not a new trend.

In the post last made on this blog, the roots of Darwinism are uncovered as the basis for many atrocities:

It is wrong to blame Charles Darwin and his cohorts alone for racism, because racism existed before Darwin.  It is wrong to blame cruelty and conquest only on Darwin and those of his ilk, for these things have been around since the Fall of Man.   What that post does is illustrate that Darwin and those who supported him wanted to and did use the pseudo-science of Darwinism for the purpose of destroying traditional morality and social mores and to give the cruel empire-builders a philosophical and supposedly scientific excuse for their atrocities.    If racism and cruelty existed before Darwin, and they did, Darwin was the means by which these things were given an imprimateur of respectability and in many cases a reason to label evil deeds as "good."

To understand fully why Darwinism was so successful despite the cobbled-together evidence for it, and to understand how it continues to this day, one needs to realize what it really is.   Darwinism is first and foremost a worldview rather than a theory.   Naturalism is the basis for Darwinism, just as it is for Secular Humanism and Atheism.  In fact, Darwinism gives these worldviews a reason for existence, since the concept of a Creator God is hostile to both.  Secular Humanism and Atheism are two sides of the same coin.   Those who hold this worldview are free to break every Law of God, as they deny that God exists and therefore His Laws are invalid.   Thus, they are free of moral restraints and capable of not just murdering others, but skinning them and putting them on display in museums.   They are free to pursue every sexual depravity and in fact do their best to make the most immoral and disgusting depravities seem both normative but in fact they become evangelistic in their desire to expose young people to sexual activities even while in grade school.  

Hand in hand with the Darwinists are the appeasers and compromisers who seek to make the Bible and the Christian faith line up with the teachings of "modern" science.   It doesn't matter that the Bible continues to teach the same things while "science" keeps changing the so-called truth.   Christless Christianity is a chameleon, easily able to adapt to the current paradigm.

This post will make five points:

1) Islamists use the name of a god, Allah, to justify outrageous and evil deeds. (Brainwashing 101)
2) European royalty used the excuse of God to justify their excesses and evil deeds.   The Reformation and the advent of the printing press was the beginning of the end of that excuse.
3) The same European crowd that used Divine Right of Kings to have their way previous centuries found that Darwinism gave them a 19th Century excuse for doing the same evil deeds they once blamed on God.
4) The fatal mistake of the "mainstream church."
5) This is all about you.

EVIL IN THE NAME OF GOD - ISLAMIC DOMINATION

Islamic terrorists are intent upon destroying Western society by any means necessary, whether it be airplanes flown into buildings or suicide bombers blowing themselves up on a bus full of Jewish citizens.  Islam has always been a religion of revenge and domination.   This is why the United States first formed the Navy and Marines, to fight off the Islamic Barbary Pirates that terrorized shipping lanes across the pond.   This is why Europeans fought the Crusades, to stop the onslaught of Islamic invaders and take back territory taken by them.   Islam has always been a religion that teaches followers to conquer and dominate.   The Koran does not hold together very well as a piece of literature, it was a cobbled-together mish-mosh of the ramblings and babblings of an egocentric pedophile named Muhammed who lived a life more hedonistic than monastic and needed help in writing and correcting the writings attributed to him, for he was not a well-educated man.   It is no wonder that Islam is a primary force for evil in the world today.   You only have to read the Koran to see that followers are told to dominate all who do not bow the knee to the god of Muhammed, Allah.   They must be converted and enslaved or they must be killed.  

Because the Koran is not a consistent document, it is possible for people to take only the best parts of the teachings therein and seek to live a peaceful life in coexistence with others.   There are Islamists who choose to do this very thing.  They ignore the parts of the Koran that call for violence and revenge, they ignore the portions that set up a Sharia Law that is hostile to women and children and is full of vengeance and legalism.  They would never consider becoming a suicide bomber or murdering their daughter because she listens to Lady Antebellum and pierces her belly button.  It appears that such Islamists are in the minority in this world.  All over the Middle East and Asia and Africa there are millions upon millions of young people being brainwashed to believe that salvation and paradise awaits all of the holy martyrs of Islam, those who commit suicide while taking innocent lives along with them.   Two words are keys to understanding the Islamic mindset in the 21st Century.  The first would be JIHAD or "holy war."   Many Islamists simplify the meaning of Jihad to be simply any and all acts of violence or warfare perpetrated on any non-Muslims under any circumstances.   Some are more forgiving to Islam in general.  Excerpt from Apologetics Index below:


Jihad : the concept of Holy War in Islam


"The Quranic term 'Jihad' means, "Holy fighting in the Cause of Allah or any other kind of effort to make Allah's Word (i.e. Islam) superior. Jihad is regarded as one of the fundamentals of Islam." (Note 1)
Muslims refer to a 'greater Jihah' (the personal struggle against sin), and a 'lesser Jihad' (holy warfare against the enemies of Allah and Islam). This distinction is often lost in the media, in part because some Muslims deliberately misrepresent the concept of Islam (example).

Muslims disagree among each other as to what is or is not acceptable in 'lesser Jihad.' For instance, while many Muslims speak out against terrorist acts committed in the name of Islam, others approve of such acts under certain conditions (example).

Following are various views and comments regarding 'Jihad': 

There are two understandings of jihad. The basic meaning is ''to struggle'' or ''to strive.'' Greater jihad is the warfare against sin and all that is against God and the teachings of the Quran. It is the personal struggle each Muslim wages to be a true believer and follower. The Quran urges one to stay on the straight path and to strive in Allah's cause. (22:78; 49:15).

Lesser jihad is the traditional holy war launched in the name of God against the enemies of God and Islam. Thus, jihad is both a personal and community commitment to defend and spread the religion of Islam.

Muslims popularly refer to four expressions of jihad:
  • Jihad of the Tongue: speaking about their faith
  • Jihad of the Hand: expressing their faith in good works
  • Jihad of the Heart: making their faith a force for good
  • Jihad of the SwordL defending their faith when under attack
Both non-Muslims and Muslim writers have used the phrase ''holy war'' with reference to jihad. Muslim scholars, however, write that Islam teaches it is unholy to start war although some wars are inevitable and justifiable.

The Quaran urges those those fight for the cause of Allah and kill pagans wherever they are found. Whenever believers meet unbelievers, Muslims are encouraged to smite their neck and to fight those who believe not in Allah and the last day (2:244; 47:4; 9:5; 9:29).

Tradition approves of violence against infidels and those who leave Islam as their native or chosen religion. Fighting and killing are described as beloved activities. Apostacy is punished by death.
[...]

The Quaran and the traditions present jihad as coercive and violent. Muslims understand it to be an effort or struggle to bring righteousness and peace on the earth. 
Source: What You Need to Know About Islam & MuslimsOff-site Link, George W. Braswell, Jr., Broadman & Holman Publishers, Nashville, TN. 2000. P. 38..."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The word Intifada which loosely translates as "Shaking off" or "Uprising" is one with which every young Palestinan Arab knows all to well.   All Palestinian children are continually barraged with songs and stories and television shows all extolling the glories of Intifada!  
Excerpt: " False charges of Israeli atrocities and instigation from the mosques played an important role in starting the intifada. On December 6, 1987, an Israeli was stabbed to death while shopping in Gaza. One day later, four residents of the Jabalya refugee camp in Gaza were killed in a traffic accident. Rumors that the four had been killed by Israelis as a deliberate act of revenge began to spread among the Palestinians. Mass rioting broke out in Jabalya on the morning of December 9, in which a 17-year-old youth was killed by an Israeli soldier after throwing a Molotov cocktail at an army patrol. This soon sparked a wave of unrest that engulfed the West Bank, Gaza and Jerusalem.

Over the next week, rock-throwing, blocked roads and tire burnings were reported throughout the territories. By December 12, six Palestinians had died and 30 had been injured in the violence. The following day, rioters threw a gasoline bomb at the U.S. consulate in East Jerusalem. No one was hurt in the bombing.

In Gaza, rumors circulated that Palestinian youths wounded by Israeli soldiers were being taken to an army hospital near Tel Aviv and "finished off." Another rumor, claimed Israeli troops poisoned a water reservoir in Khan Yunis. A UN official said these stories were untrue. Only the most seriously injured Palestinians were taken out of the Gaza Strip for treatment, and, in some cases, this probably saved their lives. The water was also tested and found to be uncontaminated.

The intifada was violent from the start. During the first four years of the uprising, more than 3,600 Molotov cocktail attacks, 100 hand grenade attacks and 600 assaults with guns or explosives were reported by the Israel Defense Forces. The violence was directed at soldiers and civilians alike. During this period, 16 Israeli civilians and 11 soldiers were killed by Palestinians in the territories; more than 1,400 Israeli civilians and 1,700 Israeli soldiers were injured. Approximately 1,100 Palestinians were killed in clashes with Israeli troops..."

Shahada 

The Palestinian version of Jihad is the very specific act of becoming a suicide bomber or in some other way losing your life while killing Jews and Christians.   Shahada is the word that is integral to the culture of young Palestinians as they learn that to be a Shahid is to be a hero.   Of course, the much older people who teach these hings to them never actually enjoy that great pleasure themselves.   How selfless and giving must the Palestinian leadership be, to let the youngest and least educated among them to be the ones to attain to such honors!








Shahada as taught by the PLO and HAMAS

Excerpt: 


Suicide terror & Shahada 

People who see life as the supreme value have difficulty understanding the mind of the suicide terrorist. Why are so many Palestinians willing and eager to kill themselves in terror attacks against Israel?

In order to create willingness among the population to confront Israel violently, the PA took advantage of the ancient tradition in Islam, Shahada or Death for Allah, which mandates Muslims to aspire to die in combat for Islam. The PA told their people that this ancient tradition also applies to them in confrontation with Israel today.

This indoctrination began shortly after the start of the Palestinian Terror War in 2000 and continues today. The PA promotes Shahada as a mandatory religious Islamic duty, both for adults and children, promising great rewards.

Success of Shahada promotion 

The Palestinian Authority's Shahada indoctrination has been very successful. Many parents celebrate the death of their children, and some even describe how they prayed for their children’s Martyr death. Even 11-year-olds talk about death lovingly, as if it’s the most they can achieve in life.


1- Children seek death
2- Adults seek death
3- Parents celebrate children's death






~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Shahada. Jihad. Intifada. Sharia Law. 

Islam is obviously a source of violence and evil in this world and the deeds done are done in the name of a god, Allah.  We find ourselves fighting this particular war every day.  

Darwinism makes no more sense than Islam and yet it is also a widespread belief system.   I ask you, which of the two of them actually do more harm to mankind?   Which religion, Darwinism or Islam, has killed more innocent victims?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

EVIL IN THE NAME OF GOD - CHRISTLESS CHRISTIANITY

At the beginning of this post, reference was made to the European nations that engaged in empire building in the hundreds of years that spanned the beginning of the long-distance sailing ships on up until the First World War.   During these several hundred years, men went forth for many different reasons to sail around the globe and find "new" lands and new routes to already-known destinations.   There were mariners primarily interested in exploring and mapping.  There were genuine Christians who sought to spread the faith of Christianity around the world.   There were adventurers whose primary goal was financial gain.   Above and beyond all that, there were the Kings and Queens who sent vessels out to find and conquer new territories and bring new riches and resources into the particular kingdom of that particular monarch.

One of the oddities of European history is the deliberate intermarriage of the various ruling houses of royalty.  Among the primary houses of royalty and influence:
Plantagenets 
Tudors
Hapsburgs
Capetians
Hanover
Romanovs
Oldenburgs
House of Orange
Stuarts 
Rothschild
Medici

Some of these were the financiers and behind-the-scenes kingmakers, most were part and parcel of the Royal Families who ruled not only Europe, but most of the known world at the height of European Emperialist power.   In order to consolidate power and make alliances, these families intermarried so that, in many cases, a war might involve a nephew against an aunt and, while soldiers and sailors died in abundance, the royals themselves might simply fail to receive each other officially at court until the dispute was settled.  

Divine Right of Kings was the principle by which these royal families ruled and expanded their territories.   They would claim that their family had been chosen by God to rule over their nations and that God had granted to them powers that gave them absolute rights to do as they saw fit.   Although most of them paid lip service to the Roman Catholic Church or an offshoot thereof, in fact they were allowed to be as predatory as they wished in terms of conquering territories and doing with the inhabitants and resources as they willed.   After all, were they not the rulers by the will of God?




Excerpts:

"...The theory of the Divine Right of Kings aimed at instilling obedience by explaining why all social ranks were religiously and morally obliged to obey their government..."

"...One vital element in the theory of the Divine Right of Kings was the Bodinian concept of sovereignty. The political theory of Jean Bodin (1529/30-96) was aimed at ending the long period of conflict and confusion caused by Religious Wars in France between Catholics and Huguenots. A lawyer and economist, Bodin wrote Six Books of the Commonweal (Six livres de la république), which was published in French in 1576 (English translation 1606). Bodin, like other politiques, argued that only undivided authority could prevent endless dissension..."


"Divine Right basics.

Definition
  1. In every kingdom, the king's power comes directly from God, to whom the ruler is accountable; power does not come to the king from the people and he is not accountable to them.
  2. In every kingdom, the king makes the final decisions on all aspects of government (including the church). Other people and institutions that exercise political power do so as delegates of the king, and are subordinate to him.
  3. However tyrannically kings act, they are never to be actively resisted. (The doctrine of non-resistance).
    If the king orders an act directly against God's commands, the subject should disobey but must submissively accept any penalty of disobedience. (The doctrine of "passive obedience" ).
    The doctrine was neatly encapsulated in the satirical song, The Vicar of Bray, which insisted that "Kings are by God appointed, /And damned are they that dare resist, / Or touch the Lord's anointed".
  4. Monarchy is the best form of government, but other forms are valid.
  5. (Some - but far from all - adherents of the Divine Right of Kings also maintained the principle of indefeasible hereditary right: i.e. the belief that while the legitimate heir to the crown is alive it is wrong to swear allegiance to any other ruler, even one actually in possession of power).
Also: 

The idea of the Divine Right of Kings evolved in Europe during the Middle Ages. The theory claimed that kings were answerable only to God and it was therefore sinful for their subjects to resist them. 

James I upheld the doctrine in his speeches and writings. This theory was supported by his son Charles I and his chief adviser, William Laud, the Archbishop of Canterbury. Laud argued that the king had been appointed by God and people who disagreed with him were bad Christians. 

In November 1688, William of Orange and his Dutch army arrived in England. When the English army refused to accept the orders of their Catholic officers, James fled to France. As the overthrow of James had taken place without a violent Civil War, this event became known as the Glorious Revolution.

William III and Mary II were now appointed by Parliament as joint sovereigns. However, the House of Commons was determined that it would not have another monarch that ruled without its consent. The king and queen had to promise they would always obey laws made by Parliament. 

After the Glorious Revolution the doctrine of Divine Right of Kings ceased to have much influence in Britain.

~~~~~~~~
Aside - Many events leading to the lessening of authority of the royals in England would take place, including the signing of the Magna Carta and the forming of the Houses of Lords and Commons.   Even so, it would take the absolute unmitigated disaster of the First World War that put a practical end to royal rule in Europe.

Why did the Romanovs resist the industrial revolution and turn deaf ears to the Russian peasantry who suffered from famine and poverty during the turn of the century before last?   They truly believed that they were appointed by God to lead their nations and in fact thought that the people loved them, although in fact the tendency of Romanov rulers to take consorts from the German royal family lines made the common man suspicious of them and made them appear less than devoted to the Russian Orthodox Church, which was the faith of the common man in Russia in 1900.  

Why did World War One begin?   In large part this was due to royals who would not listen to the complaints of the common man nor yield any authority to them without struggles.  The absolute power of the monarchs began to wane after the Reformation and certainly the continual struggles between the various houses that resulted in continual conflicts between England and Spain and France and other nations would eventually lead to that First World War that signaled the end of the Era of Royal Houses and colonialism as well.   One by one the colonies were revolting or becoming inconvenient for the ruling nations and those colonies became either primarily or entirely self-ruling. 

There are entire volumes of history that could be written about each of these royal families and yet there would be more.   The concern here is not that the Catholic Church and the Holy Roman Empire failed, nor that the Church became corrupt, nor that it took brave men like Luther and Gutenberg to bring on true freedom by giving common man the freedom to learn.   All these things are true and are part and parcel to European history.   The primary point is that the men and women who ruled in Europe became empire builders using God as an excuse but in fact primarily to extend their own realm of influence, to enrich their kingdoms and enhance their legacies.  

As asserted earlier on this blog, it was the Reformation led by men like Luther and the printing press invented by Gutenberg that freed mankind from royal tyranny.   Christian scholars led a revolution in the world of science by devising the scientific method and opening up schools to non-royals.  The availability of the Bible led to literacy among the common man, thus allowing for better lives and less gullible serfs.   The stage was set for the Divine Right of Kings to be overtaken by the principals as stated in our Declaration of Independence.

BUT THE STAGE WAS SET FOR DISASTER

As the new United States began, the era of colonialism was beginning to end.    Rulers found themselves making accommodations with the elitists and money men of their kingdoms in order to extend their rule.   In every ruling family there was an underlying belief that they, the superiors appointed by God to rule over their fellow men, had every right to do as they wished to further the interests of their kingdoms.    The Divine Right of Kings, a construct devised by men to justify tyranny and absolute power, segued neatly into the concept that Darwinist Survival of the Fittest gave the strong fiat to dominate and eliminate the weak.    So those men and women who had resorted to the concept of God's Will to cover their greed now could turn to so-called science and have Darwin stamped upon the deeds once labeled "Divine Right." 

At a time when advances in science and technology promised a brighter future for mankind, the deadly poison of Darwinism was included in the mix.   The United States of America thrived because it was a country built on Christian principles and dependent upon a common understood moral code and the freedom to work to accomplish your dreams should you be able to accomplish them.  We saw the USA become the greatest nation on the planet and yet...as the 20th Century began to grow up, the US government began to accept and implement principles of Eugenics.   Racism led to the implementation of Jim Crow Laws and plans to sterilize and weed out the "lesser" or "inferior" races were put in place.   For awhile, the Eastern elitists applauded the forward-thinking Adolf Hitler for his version of family planning.   Pictures of the concentration camps after WWII served as ipecac for many of these ideas, but Eugenicists simply changed their organizational names and toned down their rhetoric and began pushing for birth control and abortions...especially in poor and "colored" neighborhoods.  

THE FATAL MISTAKE OF THE "MAINSTREAM CHURCH."

The church, like the individual, has a simple choice to make.   One must either decide that God is your Master and the source of all authority and morality and truth.    Or, one must cede that right to mankind and then depend upon yourself or other fallible humans to decide what is to be done, what is right and what is true.   You cannot actually mix these two components because you cannot "serve two Masters."

There are compromisers who have turned their backs on God, like the Biologos folks or talkorigins folks.   These are the kinds of people who swallow every bit of Darwinist tripe whole as if it were manna.   The man who abandons God for an opinion rendered by miscreants such as Haeckel or Darwin or Gingerich cannot claim to resort to that same God in the dark of night or at the end of life's road.   The sad thing is that they, as Jesus said, "swallow a camel and strain at a gnat."   The evidence we can see all around us practically screams "Creation and Design."   In fact Jesus also said that, if man would not praise Him, the rocks would cry out.   

The Bible tells us in Psalms 19 -
1 The heavens declare the glory of God;
         And the firmament shows His handiwork.
 2 Day unto day utters speech,
         And night unto night reveals knowledge.
 3 There is no speech nor language
         Where their voice is not heard.


Do you, a Christian,  really want to put your faith in people who keep changing the age of the Earth and the Universe, keep changing the basic myth of macroevolution, continue to censor and block any evidence that hurts their pet myth and seem incapable of clearly seeing the obvious design found everywhere in the Universe?   Will you compromise on Genesis chapter one?   On chapter three?   How about chapters one through eight?

Do you, a Christian, realize that they laugh at you behind your back?   How foolish can you be to give away the very foundations of your faith and then claim to stand upon that same faith?  You can either choose a miraculous creation by a Creator God who made a glorious Universe with observable and understandable laws and processes and systems mankind could use to make life better for all.   Or you choose some kind of strange and inexplicable cosmic accident devoid of purpose or design that cannot be explained and could therefore simply *poof* out of existence as randomly and purposelessly as it *poofed* in.   You can choose to believe in a personal God who created the Universe to share with you, His creation, for all eternity or you can just try to please yourself as fast as you can as long as you can while making sure you don't get caught, because there is no purpose to life and therefore no reason to seek anything but pleasure for yourself.

THIS IS ALL ABOUT YOU

Darwinism as a philosophical entity is amazing in its paucity.    If you buy the concept of Naturalism you cannot even be sure you are reasoning, for what proof have you that you even exist, or that you are actually having personal thoughts?   Did you not evolve to this point randomly?   Without any direction then there could be no freedom for you must be a prisoner to the undirected firing of brain synapses.  Maybe you do not exist at all?   Perhaps all you are and all you know is a chimera, a charade, a momentary cosmic burp of no consequence in a continuum of nothing.


But I know that God created this world and He created me and even the most recalcitrant and trollish of commenters.   I know that many of you are still capable of critical thinking.   Most of the trolls, probably not, some dies become set over time.   This is about you, however.   I promise you that, if you research creation science topics with a critical mind you will discover that the overwhelming evidence comes down on the side of Creation.    Do a topic search on this blog, pick a topic, look at the links and research away.   Do NOT be willing to just take what the propagandists taught you in government schools.  Even the teachers who believe in Creationism are required by law to teach Darwinism at this time, unless you went to a private school.


Darwinism is popular and accepted but it is not for scientific reasons.    It is promoted for political and metaphysical reasons.   I think politics is a very bad reason to make a decision concerning scientific evidence.  I think that a worldview that does not fit the evidence means that you change the worldview rather than twist the evidence.   I urge you to consider these things.   Darwinism is a great evil.   The greatest evil of Darwinism is the impact it has on YOU.   YOU are important to God.  He will reveal the Truth to you if you are willing to seek with an open mind,

Isaiah 45:18-20

New King James Version (NKJV)
18 For thus says the LORD,
      Who created the heavens,
      Who is God,
      Who formed the earth and made it,
      Who has established it,
      Who did not create it in vain,
      Who formed it to be inhabited:

      “ I am the LORD, and there is no other.
       19 I have not spoken in secret,
      In a dark place of the earth;
      I did not say to the seed of Jacob,

      ‘ Seek Me in vain’;
      I, the LORD, speak righteousness,
      I declare things that are right.
       20 “ Assemble yourselves and come;
      Draw near together,
      You who have escaped from the nations.
      They have no knowledge,
      Who carry the wood of their carved image,
      And pray to a god that cannot save.

8 comments:

"Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

Wow, so now "Darwinism" gets blamed for Islamic fundamentalism...

Nuttier and nuttier.

anonymous_i_am said...

Wow, even more fear tactics! You really are desperate, aren't you Radar?

I wonder what part 3 will be about. No doubt Darwinism is also responsible for hurricanes, president Obama, and global warming.

Anonymous said...

This "Darwinism" sure is a malleable little sucker, isn't it? It's almost as if you could just substitute, say, "Satan" or "evil", and it would suit Radar's purposes all the same.

Jon Woolf said...

This "Darwinism" sure is a malleable little sucker, isn't it?

Sure is.

Radar, with this series of posts, you remind me strongly of a line I saw on a church sign a couple of weeks ago: "God wants spiritual fruit, not religious nuts."

You're wrong about Darwin, wrong about Darwin's theory of evolution, wrong about its intended implications and consequences, wrong about history, wrong about the origins of the 'divine right of kings', and wrong about European dynasties and their interactions. Probably wrong about a lot of other things, too. Oh, there are a few grains of wheat among the chaff, but by and large it's quite clear that you're twisting the facts to fit your worldview ... and that generally has very bad consequences.

Anonymous said...

A Christless Christian, is that like a Scotland-less Scotsman?

Chaos Engineer said...

About the "Divine Right of Kings". I checked Wikipedia, and it seems like there's some scriptural justification for it. The verses that they mention are Romans 13:1-7, and 1 Peter 2:13-17.

Are you saying those verses shouldn't be read literally? How can we know that, and how can we figure out which non-literal interpretation to use?

radar said...

God never intended His people to have a king. But the Jews implored Him to end the "God speaks through prophets" system and give them a King, and He gave them Saul. But the Jews were warned that the king would take a large portion of their goods and land and their young men to fight wars. Yet the Jews agreed.

Jesus told the crowd to "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's." The Bible says to "Obey every law of God and man." Notice the order of that.

When Peter and other apostles were grabbed by the authorities and told to quit preaching in Jesus' name, they said (Acts 5:29) "We ought to obey God rather than men" and although they were beaten, they went away rejoicing and kept on preaching.

Kings are not appointed by God now, the appointment of Saul by God in response to the Jew's request was not one that was handed down through many centuries. God did bless and cause David to succeed Saul and then Solomon was also God's choice. However, this was the nation of Israel. We are talking a thousand years before Christ!

The "kings" of the first Century AD in Europe were little more than tribal chiefs. They consolidated power through marriage and leading a group of men powerful enough to control a small area, named themselves "king" and naturally they passed on rule to brothers or sons or daughters or nephews.

There were exactly zero kings in the middle ages that had any sign from God that they had been appointed, rather, power and money had brought them position.

Believers should obey the laws, but if the law of God and man differ, the law of God supersedes the law of man.

Funny how you are the only commenter who even had one intelligent thought. Thanks for an actual serious comment!

"Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

Noting the ridiculousness of trying to pin Islamic terrorists on "Darwinism" was indeed a serious comments.

Meanwhile, you're still running away from a number of serious comments - see the "Big flaming ball" post, two posts before this one. You really got nothing?