Sutton Bank, England (photos from trekearth.com)
Shared control of my computer?
I had to call Microsoft on two different occasions in regard to an issue on my Mom's computer and it took me several hours to work out the problem. I found something out which is quite interesting which I am certain some of you are already aware of.
The Microsoft technician with the owner's permission and with the use of downloaded software can take over shared control of a computer that has a Microsoft operating system. The technicians in India did so on my Mom's computer and fixed the problem twice.
I reason a government technician could take shared control of a personal computer too...likely without permission. The shared control was done through the operating system by the Microsoft technician but I reason this could be done by government technicians to spy on terror and criminal suspects, but could also be done to any citizen I suppose that has a Microsoft operating system on a computer. Business computers could also be examined without permission.
I have mixed views on the idea of shared control. For technical support, I admit that it is a very helpful concept for a customer. I am pretty knowledgeable with computers, but I am not a technician and the shared control allowed me to have this problem dealt with quicker than it would be if I was to do my own research and to ask my various software engineer friends for assistance.
On the negative side, it would be quite easy I reason for Microsoft to work with various Western government agencies to spy on persons through entering the operating system. I suppose this would not be too difficult to do as all official copies of Microsoft operating system are to be registered to a name.
I personally have nothing to hide from Western governments, and I do not store sensitive information of my hard drive. As well, as I am a theological blogger I am making my views public and I risk one day possibly being at odds with the powers that be. But, this is a stance I take for the gospel and the theological, philosophical and Biblical research I have done for almost twenty years is what I reason the Lord wishes me to share with others in love and respect.
But even if such tactics as the government without authorization taking shared control of my computer did take place, I am to obey the state as long as I obey the Bible and God at the same time.
The state however, should obey its own laws.
Concerning Romans 13, F.F. Bruce writes that human government is a divine ordinance and has the powers of coercion and commendation which it has been given by God. By Christians obeying the state, they are serving God. Bruce (1987: 221).
Bruce reasons that Paul does not deal with the issue of unrighteous government here, but as with Acts 5: 29, Christians must obey God and Christ and not the state when the state claims divine honours. Bruce (1987: 221).
Cranfield explains that in Romans 13, Paul is not asking for an uncritical obedience to the state, but rather that God has placed the state in authority over persons. Cranfield (1992: 321).
Mounce states that in Romans 13, that there is a divinely sanctioned role of government and that Christians are responsible to that government. It did not make any difference that the governing authorities were secular. God is the sole source of authority and established the authority for the state.
If the government oversteps its rightful domain, then according to Mounce the Christian should not obey the ruler and he notes this was done in Acts 4: 9 and 5: 29.
Concerning 1 Peter 2 13-15, Barclay explains that the concept of anarchy by the Christian is far from New Testament thought. Barclay reasons what belongs to Caesar (the state) should be given to it, and what belongs to God should be given to God (Matthew 22: 21). Barclay (1976: 205).
Both Cranfield and Barclay mention that Paul is discussing the concept of submitting to an authoritarian state, as in the Roman Empire of the New Testament era. Barclay (1976: 206) Cranfield (1992: 321). Barclay correctly point out in my view that in our modern West the need for Christians to participate in democratic government as it is for and by the people, at least idealistically. Barclay (1976: 206).
Voting, letter writing, public meetings and even blogging would be ways for a Christian to voice a view.
I reason this concept of submission to the state could becomes tricky for the typical Western Christian mind. My natural reaction and that of many Christians in Western society in the Church I reason, if we were to face heavy serious persecution perhaps leading to death, would be to physically fight back. However, in a democratic Western setting we are allowed to forcibly remove the government through the vote and in some cases referendum or an act of a legislature. If the government broke the law by spying on me through unauthorized sharing of my computer, I would have the right to challenge the government based on the existing laws.
It certainly was immoral and unjust for the Roman state to execute Christians because they were Christians and would not obey the state and worship other gods, and yet the Christians were often martyrs and not soldiers.
I am not stating that because Christian did not revolt against Rome that this means we as Christians should not oppose tyranny. Germany from my understanding had a type of democracy prior to Nazis Germany and Christians should have opposed within legal means the rise of this totalitarian state. Also in the West today, Christians should oppose abortion on demand by legal means.
In conclusion, in seems to me that the Romans and Peter passages seem to rule out revolution by force against an authoritarian state. Christ died for sin, the apostles and the disciples for the most part became martyrs if need be and did not attempt to revolt against the state in the context of revolution.
Romans 13 (New American Standard Bible)
Romans 13
Be Subject to Government
1Every (A)person is to be in (B)subjection to the governing authorities For (C)there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.
2Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.
3For (D)rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same;
4for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an (E)avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.
5Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also (F)for conscience' sake.
6For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing.
7(G)Render to all what is due them: (H)tax to whom tax is due; (I)custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.
8Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for (J)he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.
1 Peter 2:12-15 (New American Standard Bible)
12(A)Keep your behavior excellent among the Gentiles, so that in the thing in which they (B)slander you as evildoers, they may because of your good deeds, as they observe them, (C)glorify God (D)in the day of [a]visitation.
13(E)Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority,
14or to governors as sent by him (F)for the punishment of evildoers and the (G)praise of those who do right.
15For (H)such is the will of God that by doing right you may (I)silence the ignorance of foolish men.
BARCLAY, WILLIAM (1976) The Letters of James and Peter, Philadelphia, The Westminster Press.
BRUCE, F.F. (1987) Romans, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
CRANFIELD, C.E.B. (1992) Romans: A Shorter Commentary, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1995) The New American Commentary: Romans, Nashville, Broadman & Holman Publishers.
The Lochness Monster versus Tarzan
My Lochness Monster article in archives has been bringing in the most traffic so far to this blog. I need to relax from PhD revisions and so here is the ending of a 'match' between Giant Haystacks (The Lochness Monster) and a wrestler calling himself Tarzan.
Please watch from 3:25 on...LOL.
Tarzan probably feels like a lot British PhD students after the verbal defence/viva.;)
I received this through email:
'We are very pleased to inform you that (ATM Card Number:4278763100030014), it has been credited in your favour, your personal Identification Number is 822. The ATM Card
value is $6.8,000,000.00 USD
Kindly note that this is legit and any act like this is very appreciated and will be well honoured, You are strongly adviced to contact Mr Moris William with this details below:
CONTACT PERSON: Mr Moris William
AGENT E MAIL: atmcardremittancedept08@msn.com
Note: You are to contact him with your full details for verifications,
FULL NAME: DELIVERY ADDRESS: PHONE NUMBER:
COUNTRY: OCCUPATION: SEX: AGE:
Thanks Mrs Rita Shawn(Announcer)'
I guess John Lennon agreed with you...
ReplyDelete"You say you want a revolution...but if you're talking about destruction, don't you know that you can count me out."
Yes, I suppose that somewhat relates to my theology here.
ReplyDeleteCheers, Saint Chucklins.
I've often been torn about how I feel about how the U.S "began". While I'm certainly glad that there was a revolution (I would guess that I owe my actual existence to this fact--among others, of course :-), I don't see the Scriptural authority to "rebel". This is definitely a sensitive subject and tricky to navigate theologically, I still believe that we are not called to violently "overthrow" governments.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that America was founded on Judeo-Christian principles is even more hard to figure in light of the Bible's principle of authority. Of course, the fact that owning slaves and participation in that travesty was also "justified" biblically in "Christian America" is hard to fathom.
I wonder if God will let us know if the American Revolution was "right" or "wrong". Of course, understanding that God is in control of all things, history included, and that everything happens according to His plan seems to suggest that it was purposed by God. But that brings me to the question: if it was purposed by God, then doesn't that mean that revolutions can be biblically sanctioned?
I'm writing fast because we're going out. I hope this all makes sense. These are difficult ideas to get my arms around.
I'll take a longer look at this next week.
GGM
For centuries, Hindu women have worn a dot on their foreheads. Most of us have naively thought this was connected with tradition or religion, but the Indian Embassy in Ottawa has recently revealed the true story.
ReplyDeleteWhen a Hindu woman gets married, she brings a dowry into the union. On her wedding night, the husband scratches off the dot to see whether he has won a convenience store, a gas station, a donut shop, a taxi cab or a motel in Canada . If nothing is there, then he must remain in India to answer telephones and provide us with technical advice.
'I've often been torn about how I feel about how the U.S "began". While I'm certainly glad that there was a revolution (I would guess that I owe my actual existence to this fact--among others, of course :-), I don't see the Scriptural authority to "rebel". This is definitely a sensitive subject and tricky to navigate theologically, I still believe that we are not called to violently "overthrow" governments.'
ReplyDeleteI agree with you concerning rebellion.
It is often assumed by many that the United States has more freedoms than Canada and this may very well be true, but this does not always seem to be the case. Canada remained loyal to the United Kingdom and is a democracy as is America. Was the revolution necessary for democracy?
'This is definitely a sensitive subject and tricky to navigate theologically, I still believe that we are not called to violently "overthrow" governments.'
Yes. I listened to Albert Mohler state that an issue to consider is that the Americans were receiving taxation without representation, but would this Biblically allow a Christian to support violent revolution by force? I doubt it. It seems to me that the higher calling would still be for a Christian to witness in peace and in general submission to authority. Britain did evolve into a democracy and Christians would have certainly played a part in that development.
'The fact that America was founded on Judeo-Christian principles is even more hard to figure in light of the Bible's principle of authority. Of course, the fact that owning slaves and participation in that travesty was also "justified" biblically in "Christian America" is hard to fathom.'
America has its sinful past as does ever nation.
'I wonder if God will let us know if the American Revolution was "right" or "wrong". Of course, understanding that God is in control of all things, history included, and that everything happens according to His plan seems to suggest that it was purposed by God. But that brings me to the question: if it was purposed by God, then doesn't that mean that revolutions can be biblically sanctioned?'
God sanctions many things in his permissible and not perfect will.
I am glad the United States is a democracy and is very powerful. Very much so. But still I must as a scholar be true to the New Testament record and it is one of non-violence in terms of revolution.
Thanks, Jason.
Russ:)
Rick, Rick, Rick...
ReplyDeleteReaders please send your complaints to:
Rick Beef
1820 LDS Downhill
Choke You Out Avenue
Metropolis/Saint Peter
Pepsi Soda,
Excited States
90210
Thanks, Rick.;)
By the way, the Indian technical support has always been excellent for me.
Russ
Russ,
ReplyDeleteI have been nicknamed the "Hammer" by a Christian poster on the MC blog.
Now I have been nicknamed a heartless monster by a friend of mine. I had a group of friends over to watch the newest movie, "Changeling". And whenever I have friends over and their is a sappy someone might cry scene, I toss tissue to a ramdon guy and tell him he might need it in case he cries.
So my friend I tossed it to said to me, if you cannot cry during a movie like this, then your a heartless monster.
So I liked that nick name, and I am keeping it, since my wife even said, their is always some truth to every joke. rick b
Funny stuff, Rick.
ReplyDeleteI like the nickname 'Rick Beef' because I think of you every time I eat some good beef with your Happiness product.
Russ:)
At least in most countries we have the freedom to protest against the government. In some countries that will get you killed.
ReplyDeleteBut God does not have to depend on our taking violent action against the government. As the Bible shows, God is in control of the nations, and will sometimes use one nation to punish another.
It must be tough for Christians living in Iran today. But if they cannot leave, best they can do is pray and trust God.
Reasonable and wise words, Saint Chucky.
ReplyDeleteGreat article on relationship between church and state. On the lighter side that poor guy who slipped and fell into the water nearly cracking his head on a jet ski, aaah, be safe, be safe!
ReplyDelete-Accidents Happen!-
As I stated even a world-class athlete would sooner or later not make the slight jump sufficiently and down they would go.
ReplyDeleteFoolish and funny.
Cheers.
I know that professional wrestling is fake and basically choreographed (to whatever degree), but I would not want Giant Haystacks/the Lochness Monster to fall on me like that. I'm sure that professional wrestlers really get hurt at times, from mistakes, possibly from real frustrations sometimes being taken out, and from some of them being a bit mean and rough. The Lochness Monster looked like he was winded there for a bit, and at his weight, I wouldn't be surprised.
ReplyDeleteAs far as respecting the law and the government, Christians should obey traffic laws, for example (and I suspect that most don't, much of the time). But when it comes to being a political activist, I don't see any examples in Scripture (other than Saul and David as rulers). I do believe that Christians should vote, but would Paul participate in a peaceful protest in front of an abortion clinic? Would Peter run for President if he were a modern-day American? Personally, I believe that every Christian doing his/her part to fulfill the Great Commission is more important than political activism. But how much a Christian should get involved in politics is a bit of a grey area for me.
Thanks, Jeff.
ReplyDeleteThe Lochness Monster/Giant Haystacks was one scary dude. He could damage quite a few opponent's ribs with those slams of his.
I share your skepticism of the political process at this time for a Christian, but I too do vote.
Russ
Check out this article called Was the American Revolution a Biblically Justified Act?
ReplyDeleteAlso:
The Founding Fathers and Slavery
and:
The Bible, Slavery and America's Founders
'When their peaceful entreaties were met with armed attackers, the Framers cited full Biblical justification to defend their own homes, families, properties, and possessions – an important point to them. In their understanding of the Scriptures, God could bless a defensive war but not an offensive war. This was their great point of spiritual appeal: they had not attacked Great Britain; they had never fired the first shot – not in the British Massacre of 1770, nor in the Lexington and Concord engagements of 1775, nor in the bombing of Boston in 1774.
ReplyDeleteIt was the fact that they had been attacked which – in their understanding of the Bible – completely changed their status in the eyes of God, for the Bible clearly authorized and justified self-defense against an aggressor as righteous before God. But some object that the American Revolution resulted in a loss of life, and therefore cannot be justifiable in the eyes of God. This position demonstrates a lack of Biblical understanding about life.'
Thanks, Jeff.
I am busy and just scan read. I am no expert on the American Revolution.
But...
I do not see a defensive war against the state as permissible either via Romans 13 as long as the state was maintaining law and order. Britain was still maintaining law and order even though they were not providing democracy by modern standards. If there was no law and order, order would need to be established and that would require force.
I cannot see where in the New Testament God would bless a defensive war that was not sanctioned by the state.
My understanding of Biblical self-defence is that it is always state sanctioned and therefore revolution by nature will not be state sanctioned.
Even in the case of civil war it often has one side rebelling against the state.
This arrived by email:
'and attached with serial numbers FTS/8070337201/06 and drew the
lucky numbers 15-22-24-48-50-37(30) which subsequently won
1,000,000.00 (One Million Great Britain Pounds) from the
PROMO The draws registered as Draw number one was conducted in
Brockley,London United Kingdom on the 28th Feruary2009.Find
below the details of the Claims Agent and contact him with the
following details
FULLNAME,.FULLADDRESS,.NATIONALITY,. AGE,.OCCUPATION,.MOBILE/TELEPHONE
NUMBER,.DATE OFWINNING AWARD, . SEX,.TOTALAMOUNT WON,.SERIAL/LUCKY NUMBERS.
NAME: Mr Ben Andrew
MAIL: benandrew138@msn.com'
Why Indian Tech support???
ReplyDeleteWhy cant we have Tech support in
Canada or the US??
-Boost Our Employment.com-
Write Microsoft a letter and ask them why tech support is in India.
ReplyDeleteHello Russ.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me the government of today are way out of line, they remind me of the pharisees who placed heavy burdens on the people that they could not carry. They are becoming more like a dictatorship and trying to force laws upon the people that are in direct contradiction to God's Laws. This made Jesus mad and He told them so. I won't go into that though i have vented plenty on my last post. But I will say that i am not the kind of person who believes in going out on the streets and yelling my rights. I take my personal convictions to God and i leave it there between me and Him. i will not succumb to government though that would demand for me to denounce the Word of God and or my Godly values. I would not riot on behalf of this for i feel that is not the Christian way. But I would stand firm on my beliefs in the face of dictatorship/adversity and if death is my reward than so be it!
In Christ Jesus!
Tamela
Hi, Tamela.
ReplyDeleteI agree that as Christians we always need to make a public stand for the Lord, regardless of what kind of government system is in place.
Thanks,
Russ:)
There have been missionaries and Christians of the past who did not believe they should resist, and stood by and watched as their spouse and children were tortured, beheaded, etc. There have been other missionaries and Christians who have fought to defend their family.
ReplyDeleteObviously, God has highly blessed the United States from its founding, as it, unlike any other nation (other than Israel), was founded on (Judeo-Christian) biblical principles and on obeying God. They escaped from England not to avoid paying taxes, as historical revisionists would have us believe, but so that they could worship God. I am no expert on civil disobedience, but regarding the American Revolution, there was no coup, nor did they try to overthrow the British government. My understanding is that they escaped to a new land, and they were trying to defend themselves against being taken over again (tyranny) and being prevented from worshiping God freely. In the end, I believe that God looks at the heart, and I believe that, no matter what the arguments are on either side as far as what the exact biblical principle might be, I think their hearts were in the right place, and, generally speaking, they were truly trying to follow God.
Some Christians of the present and past have escaped from Communist or Shari'a law (Muslim) countries. Others have remained, meeting and worshiping 'underground.' Some have even joined the Communist army (admittedly, at least sometimes against their will), or have continued to attend Muslim mosques, so that they can be a witness to those who are still lost.
Some Christians have been strongly against the Iraq war, and think it is wrong. Other Christians see it as a good, helpful and necessary step that has caused the downfall of one evil dictator, and has also helped prevent some acts of terrorism that might otherwise have occurred.
Regarding the Facebook discussion between you, Russ, and GGM, I have had great respect for John MacArthur for many years, but I disagree with him that the American Revolution was a sin by the Americans. As Jason alluded to on Facebook, I have also suspected intellectual pride on his part and the part of some of the members of his church for years now. Regarding the founding of the United States, I think David Barton has it right.
Just to emphasize, esp. for the sake and convenience of any readers who have not checked out the link:
ReplyDeleteThe Founders pursued peaceful reconciliation and entreaty; it was Great Britain who terminated the discussions. After the separation had occurred – following years of peaceful entreaties – some British leaders specifically accused the Americans of anarchy and rebellion. To this charge, John Quincy Adams forcefully responded:
"[T]here was no anarchy. . . . [T]he people of the North American union, and of its constituent States, were associated bodies of civilized men and Christians in a state of nature, but not of anarchy. They were bound by the laws of God, which they all, and by the laws of the Gospel, which they nearly all, acknowledged as the rules of their conduct."
As a confirmation of this fact, Samuel Adams, in 1772 in one of the most famous of his writings, urged Americans to study the Scriptures to understand the basis of the struggle to preserve their God-given rights. He declared:
"The Rights of the Colonists as Christians. These may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institutes of the great Law Giver and Head of the Christian Church, which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament."
Therefore, under the Framers’ understanding of Romans 13, the American Revolution was not an act of anarchy or rebellion; rather it was an act of resistance to a government which violated the Biblical purposes for which God had ordained civil government. In fact, so cognizant were the Founders that they would account to God for what they had done and be justified in His eyes, that the flag of the Massachusetts Army proclaimed “An Appeal to God,” and the flag of the Massachusetts Navy likewise declared “An Appeal to Heaven.”
Additionally, the Framers were so opposed to anarchy in general, that immediately upon their separation from Great Britain, great care was taken to reinstitute government immediately so anarchy would not prevail. And the original State constitutions were overtly Christ-centered in their wordings and appeals. Quite simply, the Framers and most American Christians of that day – except the Quakers – believed they had conducted themselves in a manner in which they were not in rebellion to God or the Scriptures.
The second factor which the Framers believed gave them Biblical justification for their actions was the fact they did not initiate the conflict. The Framers had been fully committed to peaceful reconciliation and had pursued that course for 11 consecutive years before the separation from Great Britain. There was no desire to raise arms against England, their mother country and the land of their birth. Nevertheless, in the last two years of their peaceful reconciliation attempts (e.g., as in May 1776 with their Olive Branch Petition), their entreaties and appeals were met solely by military force. In fact, King George III dispatched 25,000 British troops to invade his own Colonies, enter into the homes of his own citizens, take their private possessions and goods, and imprison them without trials – all in violation of his own British common law, English Bill of Rights, and Magna Carta.
Additionally:
ReplyDeleteYet, now fired upon, they could defend themselves. In fact, so reticent were they to separate from Great Britain that it was a full three years after King George III had drawn the sword and sent armed troops against his own citizens in America before they announced their separation. As signer of the Declaration John Witherspoon confirmed:
"On the part of America, there was not the most distant thought of subverting the government or of hurting the interest of the people of Great Britain; but of defending their own privileges from unjust encroachment; there was not the least desire of withdrawing their allegiance from the common sovereign [King George III] till it became absolutely necessary – and indeed, it was his own choice."
When the decision for a separation was finally made, however, the Founders continued to maintain their strong entreaty to God for the justness of their actions. For example, in a letter to British officials, Samuel Adams, the “Father of the American Revolution,” declared:
"There is One above us who will take exemplary vengeance for every insult upon His majesty. You know that the cause of America is just. You know that she contends for that freedom to which all men are entitled – that she contends against oppression, rapine, and more than savage barbarity. The blood of the innocent is upon your hands, and all the waters of the ocean will not wash it away. We again make our solemn appeal to the God of heaven to decide between you and us. And we pray that, in the doubtful scale of battle, we may be successful as we have justice on our side, and that the merciful Savior of the world may forgive our oppressors."
Something else, which many Americans seem to be ignorant of today is the following:
ReplyDeleteHowever, the taking of life is not always the taking of innocent life. God allows man justifiably to take human life on three occasions.
The first occasion is for the cause of civil justice (e.g., Deuteronomy 19:11-13, Numbers 35:16-27, 2 Samuel 4:11, etc.). The shedding of blood in such cases is not the shedding of innocent blood. The second justifiable cause is general military conflict (e.g., Numbers 32:27, 2 Chronicles 32:8, 1 Samuel 4:1). The third cause is in defense of one’s life, family, or property (e.g., Nehemiah 4:13-14 & 20-21, Zechariah 9:8, 2 Samuel 10:12). In these three situations, the taking of life is not viewed by God as the shedding of innocent blood.
Similarly, Jewish scholars point out that the prohibition in the Sixth Commandment is not against killing but rather is against murder. That is, they assert that the proper translation from the Hebrew is not “Thou shalt not kill,” but rather “Thou shalt not murder.” Murder is the taking of innocent life, while killing may not be (e.g., the three Biblically justified examples given above).
I know you like having a lot of comments, Russ, so I am contributing toward that. : )
ReplyDeleteHere is something else from that same link, which I wish more Americans would be aware of, since so many today seem to have a similar anti-war mindset such as hippies and others in the 60's did:
For example, Francis Hopkinson, a signer of the Declaration of Independence (and a church choir leader, musician, noted poet and literary figure), made this clear in his 1777 work “A Political Catechism”:
Q. What is war?
A. The curse of mankind; the mother of famine and pestilence; the source of complicated miseries; and the undistinguishing destroyer of the human species.
Q. How is war divided?
A. Into offensive and defensive.
Q. What is the general object of an offensive war? . . .
A. [F]or the most part, it is undertaken to gratify the ambition of a prince, who wishes to subject to his arbitrary will a people whom God created free, and to gain an uncontrolled dominion over their rights and property. . . .
Q. What is defensive war?
A. It is to take up arms in opposition to the invasions of usurped power and bravely suffer present hardships and encounter present dangers, to secure the rights of humanity and the blessings of freedom, to generations yet unborn.
Q. Is even defensive war justifiable in a religious view?
A. The foundation of war is laid in the wickedness of mankind . . . . God has given man wit to contrive, power to execute, and freedom of will to direct his conduct. It cannot be but that some, from a depravity of will, will abuse these privileges and exert these powers to the injury of others: and the oppressed would have no safety nor redress but by exerting the same powers in their defence: and it is our duty to set a proper value upon and defend to the utmost our just rights and the blessings of life: otherwise a few miscreants [unprincipled individuals] would tyrannize over the rest of mankind, and make the passive multitude the slaves of their power. Thus it is that defensive is not only justifiable, but an indispensable duty.
Q. Is it upon these principles that the people of America are resisting the arms of Great Britain, and opposing force with force?
A. Strictly so. . . . And may Heaven prosper their virtuous undertaking!
Q. But it has often been said, that America is in a state of rebellion. Tell me, therefore, what is Rebellion?
A. It is when a great number of people, headed by one or more factious leaders, aim at deposing their lawful prince without any just cause of complaint in order to place another on his throne.
Q. Is this the case of the Americans?
A. Far otherwise.
OK, last comment contribution for now:
ReplyDeleteJames Wilson (a signer of the Declaration and the Constitution, an original Justice on the U. S. Supreme Court and the father of the first organized legal training in America), explained in to his law students more about defensive rights:
"I here close my examination into those natural rights, which, in my humble opinion, it is the business of civil government to protect, and not to subvert, and the exercise of which it is the duty of civil government to enlarge, and not to restrain. . . . The defence of one’s self, justly called the primary law of nature, is not, nor can it be abrogated by any regulation of municipal law. This principle of defence is not confined merely to the person; it extends to the liberty and the property of a man: it is not confined merely to his own person; it extends to the persons of all those, to whom he bears a peculiar relation – of his wife, of his parent, of his child, of his master, of his servant: nay, it extends to the person of every one, who is in danger, perhaps, to the liberty of every one, whose liberty is unjustly and forcibly attacked. It becomes humanity as well as justice. . . . As a man is justified in defending, so he is justified in retaking, his property, or his peculiar relations, when from him they are unjustly taken and detained. . . . This long investigation concerning natural rights and natural remedies, I conclude by answering the question, with which I introduced it: Man does not exist for the sake of government, but government is instituted for the sake of man."
A final indication that the Framers believed they were engaged in a defensive war was the fact that throughout the course of the struggle, the conflict was often described by the Americans as a civil war rather than a revolution. Only in later years was it consistently called a revolution rather than a civil war. Very clearly, the Framers did not view the American Revolution as an act of anarchy or of rebellion against God, the Bible or any of its teachings. Under the view of Romans 13 as understood by the Framers, the American Revolution was indeed a Biblically-justifiable act.
'Obviously, God has highly blessed the United States from its founding, as it, unlike any other nation (other than Israel), was founded on (Judeo-Christian) biblical principles and on obeying God'
ReplyDeleteThanks, Jeff. I really appreciate the comments!
My deduction is that many Canadians and Western Europeans would argue with some of what you are stating. Yes, the United States is the most powerful country with the largest economy and most powerful military, but many social democrat Europeans would see America in a much more negative light that you would.
Myself, I am rather pro-American, and I greatly appreciate religious freedom, which we still basically have in Canada, although I do not support the Iraq war. I reason it has been shown not to be a justified defensive war and was a preventive war against an enemy and Iraq was not an actual serious military threat.
If the United States and West was to be consistent and attempt to rid the world of evil dictators it would have to start with attacking China!
'They escaped from England not to avoid paying taxes, as historical revisionists would have us believe, but so that they could worship God.'
They had left the United Kingdom, but from what I see in light of Romans 13, Britain was still maintaining law and order.
Christians did not rebel against Rome in the New Testamnet era, which was far more brutal to Christians than was Britain, and therefore I doubt God in his perfect will desired for the British/Americans to revolt against Britain. God of course allowed this in his permissible will and yes good things have occurred in America as a world leader with freedom of religion. But of course false religion has also spawned.
Cheers, Jeff.
CNN: Man Survives After Getting Hit by Truck & Train
ReplyDeleteI saw this on local television as well.
...but many social democrat Europeans would see America in a much more negative light that you would.
ReplyDeleteLet me point out that I was focusing on America's founding (and of course the American Revolution), and not on America today. The United States today (morally and spiritually speaking) is not even close to being the same as it was when the Founding Fathers were alive. In fact, it is probably just about at the opposite moral and spiritual extreme compared to what it was during the days of the Founding Fathers.
...I do not support the Iraq war. I reason it has been shown not to be a justified defensive war and was a preventive war against an enemy and Iraq was not an actual serious military threat.
The media put a totally negative slant on the Iraq war; but in fact there have been many very positive things that have resulted because of the war, which the media never reported. According to a UNICEF report at the end of 2003, more than 3 1/2 million Iraqi children had been immunized as a result of the Iraq war. According to an April, 2004 report from UNICEF, school attendance in Iraq increased by 60 percent shortly after the war to more than 95 percent during the national exam week. UNICEF says that as of April, 2004, more than 2,500 schools had been renovated with the goal of 4,000 being completed by the end of that year. In a November, 2003 interview on National Public Radio, Andrew Natsios of the U.S. Agency for International Development said that the port at Umm Qasar, Iraq's largest, is modern and functioning for the first time in 20 years. According to James Haverman, the Coalition Provisional Authority Senior Advisor to the Iraqi Ministry of Health, all 240 hospitals in Iraq as well as 2400 primary health care clinics were operating as of December, 2003. On March 8, 2004, an interim constitution that defines Iraq as being "federal, democratic and pluralist" was signed by members of the Iraqi Governing Council. Not only did U.S. soldiers demonstrate field sanitation and hand washing, but UNICEF conducted an active health education program to improve personal hygiene and promote more hand washing.
I have read/heard that, as a result, there were terrorist plans that were thwarted. And, of course, a dictator was deposed as a result. I do suspect, however, that Bush was idealistic IF he really believed that the war could completely stop terrorism. Nevertheless, it did help stem terrorism to a degree, for the time being. Now that Obama is President, I expect terrorist acts to increase greatly, though of course that is only a guess.
If the United States and West was to be consistent and attempt to rid the world of evil dictators it would have to start with attacking China!
I completely agree.
Regarding a U.S. war with China, a July 2007 article on AbyTheLiberal.com states:
ReplyDeleteA look back at history of US conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, Kosovo and Vietnam shows that the US conventional forces are not as invincible as some of us would like to believe. The United States won the Iraq and Afghanistan wars mainly because of a strategy of carpet bombing ground based guerillas and a complete lack of opposing air defence to stop the advance of their bombers. In both these wars the US forces were aided by local troops and a large number of nations banded with US as Coalition Forces. At the other side of the coin, an extreme overconfidence by defence analysts led to the death of 57000+ US forces in the Vietnam War without an actual military victory and a massive global political defeat. In the Kosovo Conflict, the US led NATO forces faced setbacks due to their overconfidence in technological superiority of US forces. The KLA guerillas were undermanned and with no air defence, eventually gave up the war but it revealed the inherent flaws in the US military technologies like ’stealth’ and ‘GPS targeting’.
In case of US going into war against China, it would face an exponentially worse time than it did in Vietnam or Kosovo. A US bombing strike on Chinese mainland would not only be struck down by the Chinese air defences (SAMs, etc.) but also face a full fledged counter attack from China’s PLA Air Force. The limited size of airbases in Taiwan and US would also hinder the advancing US forces while China, due to its large continental size would not face such problems. The USN and USAF have unquestionable superiority over China’s PLAN and PLAAF in technology and numbers, but it would hardly decide the outcome of a war; as China would be unlike any adversary US faced in the past. Like Kosovo, there would be a lot of surprises in store for US forces but unlike Kosovo they wouldn’t be facing 10000 disorganised ground based guerillas in China. Instead it would be a 2.5 million strong army with full fledged air, ground, sea and missile forces; all backed by a relatively stable economy and effective dispersed human intelligence (HUMINT).
In that incredible video, I would say that God spared that man's life for some reason.
ReplyDelete'The media put a totally negative slant on the Iraq war; but in fact there have been many very positive things that have resulted because of the war, which the media never reported.'
ReplyDeleteThanks, Jeff. I can grant that point.
I know British people that use similar argumentation for colonization with the British Empire.
It is not a black and white issue.
'I have read/heard that, as a result, there were terrorist plans that were thwarted. And, of course, a dictator was deposed as a result. I do suspect, however, that Bush was idealistic IF he really believed that the war could completely stop terrorism. Nevertheless, it did help stem terrorism to a degree, for the time being. Now that Obama is President, I expect terrorist acts to increase greatly, though of course that is only a guess.
If the United States and West was to be consistent and attempt to rid the world of evil dictators it would have to start with attacking China!
I completely agree.'
I have read that theory as well, and also the theory that the Iraq war has caused an increase in those in the Islamic world willing to commit acts of terrorism.
'In case of US going into war against China, it would face an exponentially worse time than it did in Vietnam or Kosovo. A US bombing strike on Chinese mainland would not only be struck down by the Chinese air defences (SAMs, etc.) but also face a full fledged counter attack from China’s PLA Air Force. The limited size of airbases in Taiwan and US would also hinder the advancing US forces while China, due to its large continental size would not face such problems.'
Good point, Jeff.
'In that incredible video, I would say that God spared that man's life for some reason.'
Good point.
Thanks my friend.
The Watchtower versus Latter-Day Saints:
ReplyDeleteAn attempt at humour
Missionaries
Interesting comparison
Comparison
Hey, Russ, very timely that you brought up the Watchtower. I had two girls knock on my door this morning who were Jehovah's Witnesses, and one or both plan to come back next Sat. to talk some more, so I plan to do some intensive study on their beliefs this week. I have debated with and talked to JW's before, and I do have quite a bit of information on them, but would you mind posting blog links or website links to any info on them?
ReplyDeleteI know that only the Holy Spirit can change their hearts (and only if they are Elected), and that prayer is VITAL, and I know that some people refuse to talk to cults that knock on their door, and that others see talking to them as wrong or sinful. But I see it as a chance to witness, as well as a chance to be motivated to do some deeper study. After I talked with those girls for a while this morning, and they left, I felt the joy of the Holy Spirit fill me, and I was ecstatic. Witnessing often fills me with the joy of the Holy Spirit, and I think that is a gift God gives us (not necessarily all the time, but often) when we take a stand and share the gospel with others. I think that is the most important 'work' we can do as Christians.
ANKERBERG, JOHN AND JOHN WELDON (1999) Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions, Eugene, Oregon, Harvest House Publishers.
ReplyDeleteBOWMAN, ROBERT M. (1990) Why You Should Believe in the Trinity, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
Bowman has also written other books on the subject.
MARTIN, WALTER (1965)(1997) The Kingdom of The Cults, Minneapolis, Bethany House Publishers.
Ankerberg
Martin
Habermas (resurrection)
Rhodes
Thanks, Russ!
ReplyDeleteI know the late Walter Martin is the expert.
Yes, and despite all the controversies associated with his name, he knew his material well and I believe was correct on most points.
ReplyDeleteCheers, Jeff.
I have read that theory as well, and also the theory that the Iraq war has caused an increase in those in the Islamic world willing to commit acts of terrorism.
ReplyDeleteTerrorism is a tricky thing to fight against, and is not likely to be stopped as long as Islam exists. Terrorism does not stem from any one particular country (though Islamic countries do use public media to brainwash the masses to commit terrorist acts, which they see as heroic acts), and its effects have been world-wide. The radical Muslim wages jihad to bring the end of days and the Mahdi ("Guided One," the prophesied redeemer of Islam who will rid the world of error, injustice and tyranny alongside Jesus). The moderate Muslim awaits the return of Mahdi to wage jihad. But the objective is the same - to force non-Muslims to convert to Islam.
When a friend and I used to go door-to-door over a year ago, we would sometimes come to houses that had Jehovah's Witness literature still on the front doorstep or in the door.
ReplyDeleteI have had Jehovah's Witnesses come to my door many times (on a regular basis), but I have never had a Mormon come to my door, though I have seen them on their bikes once or twice.
'Terrorism is a tricky thing to fight against, and is not likely to be stopped as long as Islam exists. Terrorism does not stem from any one particular country (though Islamic countries do use public media to brainwash the masses to commit terrorist acts, which they see as heroic acts), and its effects have been world-wide.'
ReplyDeleteI am not an expert on Islam or the Middle East. My reasoning is that much of the reason that some in the Muslim world hate the West is the historical Western interference with Middle Eastern affairs, including with Israel, in conjunction with what they perceive as Western immorality.
I would support Israel as an ally, but my overall military and economic approach would be to avoid close partnerships and interaction with Islamic states that are significantly hostile to the West.
Thanks, Jeff.
Hi Russ, me again.
ReplyDeleteSeems like this blog is getting a few more comments these days. Satire is generating more discussion. Well that's a good thing at the end of the day.
Mate love the wrestling thing. I used to watch it with my dad when I was a kid and he used to take it really seriously. I actually met a guy just recently who used to be a world championship wrestler right here in Melbourne about 40 years ago. Mate it's not a pretty sight now.
Catch you next time. I will be back soon.
Russell.
Thanks, Russell.
ReplyDeleteGood to see you back, mate.
Yes, the traffic and comments have picked up on both satire and theology and thekingpin68.
Thank you to everyone involved.