It's a Sin to Disrespect the President and to not Submit to his Authority

[evenifigoalone]

Eh...IDK. I think some people take their criticism too far and getting carried away with just plain insulting instead of real criticism. But...I can't say I'm against political cartoons anymore than I am against short comics criticizing any other existing point of view.
IDK, just seems to me that it's hard to draw a definite line on this one.

 

[Zaac]

Zaac - this is Post # 79- so its possible I may have missed a few posts.

But I dont know if you have answered a question or two that I think I have seen. If not - then I will (re) post them here:

1) Were the Germans wrong in refusing to submit to Hitler?

Salty I believe I said that Poncho gave the answer for that. We must not forgo the admonition of Jesus Christ in our submission. We are to submit to Him FIRST. If Hitler was ordering the Germans to systematically murder the Jews and anyone who didn't meet his Aryan requirement, that is in direct violation of God's command.

2) Were the Colonists wrong in waging war against King George III?

A simple yes or no should be sufficent.

What did King George III do to the colonists?

and if you say no to # 2 - then you would have to agree that the CSA was right in forming their own country - correct?

The question needs a bit of clarification before I can answer.:flower:

 

[Zaac]

Eh...IDK. I think some people take their criticism too far and getting carried away with just plain insulting instead of real criticism.

And that is precisely the case questdriven. And if you keep watch, you will see that the majority of the time that folks on here or in the church are criticizing, it goes back to money and politics and very rarely anything of eternal consequence.

 

[evenifigoalone]

One thing I almost never fail to see in any online debate is the presence of logical fallacies such as ad hominem, straw man, or any other fallacy that launches an attack on the person instead of the argument. But usually it's a waste of time to point it out. And I'd be lying if I said I've never committed some of those myself, even after learning better. It's easy to get caught up in the heat of the moment sometimes.
I'm more worried about myself than others.

 

[Don]

Mind that if yall were talking about his unGodliness rather than his politics with which you disagree, then you'd have a leg to stand upon. As the lot of you don't do anything but go on and on about the man's politics, wonder which is perceived by the world as your primary concern?

Are you silly-stupid?!? His politics are a direct result of his ungodliness!!! Everything he "politics" about is based on his beliefs; the two are inseparable. Thus, you again prove that you are either immature and don't actually understand what you're talking about; or you're actually just here to stir the pot....

And as Zaac has pointed out the last year and a half, majority approval of wickedness doesn't make it Godliness. Neither does a mass denial that Scripture has been misapplied make it so.

Thus, ignoring the oh-so-many pages in this thread alone that point out how you've misapplied scripture, because either you're too immature to understand it, or you're too prideful to admit your error, or you're just here to stir up the muck.

This board has the same disease that's infected the church. But as Scripture says 2 Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. 3 For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. 5 But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry. 2 Tim. 4:2-5

And I see everyone else responding to you with scripture that identifies your mis-use of it...but you don't address that. You just continue with your personal pet peeves.

You're silly. You sit and debate Scripture with folks. I'll keep proclaiming It.

As you said above: claiming that we're not proclaiming scripture doesn't make it so.

Man please. All yall have shown is that because of politics, yall display the same puffed up wicked, false piety that you have since day 1. And apparently think that because you're in agreement about your wickedness, that it somehow morphs into Godliness.

And your piousness is somehow different?

I don't want your goat. :laugh:

Good; you didn't get mine. But the tone of your responses to me, and the way you keep putting me on ignore, says that I'm apparently getting yours.

Folks who are reading this: What does it say that I analyze what Zaac is saying/doing, post about it, and he puts me on "ignore"?

So back to IGNORE for you and your fake "impartiality" and fake attempts to be the "peacemaker". That lil act should have been put on IGNORE months before it was.

Whether you can read it or not, I'll keep pointing out your folly, lest you become wise in your own conceit; and especially if someone actually starts to think you're posting something halfway intelligent.

 

[InTheLight]

I'm still waiting for Zaac to answer Salty's question #2. With a simple yes or no answer, NOT another question lobbed back at him.

 

[InTheLight]

Folks who are reading this: What does it say that I analyze what Zaac is saying/doing, post about it, and he puts me on "ignore"?

Depends on who is reading it.

Zaac: You have figured out my MO.
Poncho: You are a troll.
TND: I'm tired of having you prove me wrong.
ITL: We're never going to agree.
RevMitchell: You're starting to convince me.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Whether you can read it or not, I'll keep pointing out your folly, lest you become wise in your own conceit; and especially if someone actually starts to think you're posting something halfway intelligent.

Some people are just doomed to remain in their folly, and reap the lack of reward that brings them on the other side of this life. Pointing it out is ... well, pointless. Only those who are in mindless agreement will join in heartily congratulating such folly, and they too are doomed to the same lack of reward. The rest of us will just have to struggle along without their input.

 

[Sapper Woody]

It's an interesting debate, where the line is. I do not agree with the president on most (all?) his decisions. I think he has lied, cheated, and broken his oath. I do not like him and I am looking forward to him being out of office. But I draw my personal line at personal attacks on the president. I include calling him names, such as the "Great Pretender" (not trying to single anyone out, but that's the most prevalent on the board). I believe that things like that are not only disrespect, but also worthless and make the speaker lose credibility with the intended audience.

In my mind, there's a vast difference between criticizing a person and being disrespectful. Is being disrespectful a sin? Probably not. But it is more harmful than hurtful IMO. And it shows that at that point one doesn't care about that person no matter what they do. They have such an ingrained distaste for the person that the person could do a complete 180 and would still be criticized. IMO.

 

[poncho]

I understand it quite well.

It doesn't come out in your posts. It looks to me like you are more upset because the rest of us won't submit to your authority Zaac. And when anyone refuses you tie Jesus into little knots and use Him to whip up on us. That is disrespecting Christ.

 

[Salty]

1) Were the Germans wrong in refusing to submit to Hitler?

...If Hitler was ordering the Germans to systematically murder the Jews and anyone who didn't meet his Aryan requirement, that is in direct violation of God's command.

What would be in violation of Gods Command - a) Hitlers orders or b) German citizens not meeting those orders

2) Were the Colonists wrong in waging war against King George III?

What did King George III do to the colonists?.

I guess you missed that year of High School History

and if you say no to # 2 - then you would have to agree that the CSA was right in forming their own country - correct?

The question needs a bit of clarification before I can answer.:flower:

Okay, let me put this on a 6th grade level - Did the CSA believe that:

it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Anotherwords - was the US Federal Govt ursurping the 10th Admendment?

 

[Zaac]

What would be in violation of Gods Command - a) Hitlers orders or b) German citizens not meeting those orders

Hitler's orders to murder. German Christians were not called of God to disobey HIM just because Hitler said to.

I guess you missed that year of High School History

I didn't. You asked the question so I just assumed you had some things you felt like they had a right to wage war against KG3 about like you did with Hitler.

Okay, let me put this on a 6th grade level - Did the CSA believe that:

it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Anotherwords - was the US Federal Govt ursurping the 10th Admendment?

THAT was 6th grade level?:laugh: Care to say it in your own words?

 

[Scarlett O.]

What did King George III do to the colonists?

Never heard of a Hessian mercenary?

Please go and read the Declaration of Independence in it's entirety. Pay close attention to the mid-section that outlines the 27 abuses of power perpetrated by George III against his own people, the colonists.

Pay close attention to abuses 23 -27.

Oh, what the heck. I'm off today - my mother has a doctor's appointment. Here's 23-27. Abuses 1-22 are just as indefensible and vile, but these last 5 take the cake.

• He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
• He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
• He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
• He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
• He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

 

[Salty]

Hitler's orders to murder. German Christians were not called of God to disobey HIM just because Hitler said to. ...

So we can disobey Obama since he has no problem in murding the pre-born?

... Care to say it in your own words?

I did

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Wonder what Zaac thinks of this?

Isn't that pretty much criticism of the type we've been posting here? And isn't that a former president bluntly critiquing a sitting president? Maybe Zaac can tell Slick Willie where to repent.

 

[Zaac]

Never heard of a Hessian mercenary?

Please go and read the Declaration of Independence in it's entirety. Pay close attention to the mid-section that outlines the 27 abuses of power perpetrated by George III against his own people, the colonists.

Pay close attention to abuses 23 -27.

Oh, what the heck. I'm off today - my mother has a doctor's appointment. Here's 23-27. Abuses 1-22 are just as indefensible and vile, but these last 5 take the cake.

Thanks Scarlett. Abuses 23-27 appear to be in opposition to God's laws so again, they aren't called to submit to anything that puts them in opposition to God.

 

[Zaac]

So we can disobey Obama since he has no problem in murding the pre-born?

You can disobey his directive to murder. That doesn't mean you get to disobey the things that have nothing to do with God's laws.

I did

Then please dumb down your erudition some more for this old country boy. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[saturneptune]

You can disobey his directive to murder. That doesn't mean you get to disobey the things that have nothing to do with God's laws.

Then please dumb down your erudition some more for this old country boy. :smilewinkgrin:

I can remember all of the disagreements we had during the 2012 election over Romney. In a sense, you were correct. I agree with you on the point that Obama would not be in power unless it was for God's purposes. I also agree that by my vote for Romney, I was approving of his past record of gay rights, abortion, and gun control. There is no doubt that he changed some of his positions in order to win the election. The fact is Romney did not win the election, and for whatever eternal purpose I cannot understand, Obama won not once, but twice. Maybe the Lord was giving us more time as people to understand what state our nation is in. My reasoning for voting for Romney was that he was the only chance we had for getting rid of Obama, and could have moved forward from there. Now, all we can do is hope and pray that the choices are more Godly in 2016 on both sides. The election of 2012 was like choosing between a D- and an F. A third party vote at the time would have done nothing but take a vote away from Romney and give one vote to Obama. One candidate was saying I am for gay rights and abortion, and the other was saying he was against it. I have no way of knowing what was truly in the heart of Romney, but given the circumstances, it was the only choice.

I think as Christians, we are all obligated to respect the office of President. I also think we are commanded to obey our laws. Also, we as Christians should be praying that the Lord touches the heart of our leaders to follow His will. That is really separate and apart from our obligation within the law to work for change. We know Obama cannot run again, and can pray for nominees in 2016 on both sides that are Christians. Just one time in my life, I would like to be able to vote for a candidate in an election that either man would be a positive change for this nation, instead of voting for the lesser of two evils. Instead of voting for a D- or an F, how about an election choice of a A- vs a B+. People have to get off their lazy butts and get out and work for change. It does not change by watching the nightly news.

Changing this nation does not come about by disobeying laws, it comes about through working for change.

 

[Don]

You can disobey his directive to murder. That doesn't mean you get to disobey the things that have nothing to do with God's laws.

And there you have it, folks. We've gone from sinning because of our disrespect for the president, to somehow disobeying things that have nothing to do with God's laws. Remember: if you want to argue something in such a way that your opponent can't win, always argue with ambiguities.

Zaac agrees that Obama's support of abortion is murder; but we're the ones sinning because we call him names.

-----

I think Woody put it best. For those of you who watched "Band of Brothers", there's a scene towards the end where Dick Winters is sitting in a jeep, and his old training officer walks by; at this point towards the end of the war, Winters has been promoted to Major, and his old training officer has remained a captain. The captain turns his head, trying to pretend not to see Winters so he won't have to salute him; Winters calls out to him and says, "We salute the rank, not the man."

 

[Zaac]

I can remember all of the disagreements we had during the 2012 election over Romney. In a sense, you were correct. I agree with you on the point that Obama would not be in power unless it was for God's purposes. I also agree that by my vote for Romney, I was approving of his past record of gay rights, abortion, and gun control. There is no doubt that he changed some of his positions in order to win the election. The fact is Romney did not win the election, and for whatever eternal purpose I cannot understand, Obama won not once, but twice. Maybe the Lord was giving us more time as people to understand what state our nation is in.

That's a god word right there SN.