Pardon the hiatus. I was temporarily banned for my heretical views. Just joking, I was banned for another reason. Anyway, back to regular scheduled programming...
By the way, I have responded to your most recent post in the 'Objectivity' thread in the Religion forum.
You have a peculiar way of dividing things that aren't necessarily separate. The political and social are frequently advancing a moral and right end.
And how well have the 'political and social' been doing in 'advancing a moral and right end.' ?
So we can oppose an evil or advance a good politically and it can be integral with the social.
How about the greatest good - namely, the kingdom of God - can that be advanced politically/socially? I wouldn't be surprised if you think that the kingdom of God will come through political/social means. Surely many of the 1st century Jews thought that would be the case. And surely many of them still have that expectation.
Those aren't necessarily either/or propositions. Wars can be moral. I think WWII is as good an example of that as can be summed in the modern age.
What moral cause was being fought for in WWII?
I think soldiers do their duty and politicians either fail them or not by tying that duty to a worthwhile or worthless cause, but you're moving off the whole point here, which is that people, Christ loving and God fearing people can and do die without that death being anything like a condemnation of them.
Do not mistake me for saying that Christians do not die bloody deaths. Peter was crucified. Stephen was stoned. Their deaths glorified God. But in what way(s) do the soldiers fighting in political, man-made wars glorify God by their deaths?
Evil men sometimes kill good ones, from John the Baptist to who knows, maybe a group of strangers praying in a church.
How do you know that they were good? How do you know that they weren't disobeying God in their lives?
Condemnation is rightly focused on the killer, not on his victims.
What if the 'victims' did things (namely, committing sin) to warrant that type of death? If they were doing such things, then death was indeed deserved.
'And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.' (Romans 1:28-32)
It's horrible to me because it allows for people like you to look upon decent human beings
Again, how do you know they were decent? Were you aware of their hearts, like God is (Luke 16:15)? How are sinners 'decent human beings'?
destroyed by evil and create a metaphysical caste system by which they reaped something they sowed.
You do not believe in that biblical principle then - of reaping what one sows?
It is a compassionless approach to human suffering that stands contrary to what I believe
And what you believe is right... isn't it?
can be known of God through the example of Jesus Christ.
Jesus Christ was always compassionate wasn't He, never angry and severe?
You simply aren't aware of reality, the reality of God's wrath.
Because I can't possibly be aware and differ? What a proud load that is and what a shame you believe it.
If you were aware of the reality that pertains to this matter (the reality of the incident being the wrath of God), then you wouldn't differ to the view I hold (a view which I didn't create by myself - but was formed, and informed, by true knowledge). Instead, you would agree with me. For two people aware of one singular truth wouldn't differ in their views, but rather, would be united and unifed by that one truth.
You can couch my reaction/rejection as you like, as you have already, as some insufficiency or emotional response. You can couch your declarations as information instead of assumption, but the truth is I simply differ and I've told you why that is.
You differ to the truth and you're not willing to accept that. If that's that not obstinacy, I don't know what is. You deny that it's not, but your fruits seem to say otherwise.
You have a propensity for declaring without any actual reason in support. All that reduces to is, "You don't agree with me, so you must be X." Assumptive nonsense running its legs off in a neat circle.
If you disagree with the truth (which you do), that's how I know your perspective is false.
What is it then, if not pride or obstinacy?
A reasoned difference. What is your repeated "You can't grasp" (to sum) but an assumptive expression of the very thing you're attempting to lay at my feet?
A 'reasoned difference'. You see, you arrived at your conclusion (of the shooting incident
not being the wrath of God) by reason...did you not? (And do you know that one can reason their way to a wrong conclusion?). I however did not come to the conclusion (of the shooting incident being the wrath of God) through reason, but rather, through revelation. If not for revelation, I wouldn't know.
:
A person can't "admit" a thing they don't accept as true. Why can't you admit you're Hitler? Because you aren't Hitler. Did that help?
But just because that person doesn't accept it as true, doesn't mean that it isn't true! If you don't accept that the world is round.... fine... but that doesn't mean that it isn't true. I suppose you may now ask me, '
Prove that what you have said, and do say, is true'. My friend, if proof is what you want I can't offer it. This is not simply a matter of science - where one can prove physical facts. What we are dealing with here is a spiritual thing. You require revelation, Town Heretic. When you have that revelation, you will no longer ask for proof.
I didn't say I don't have one. I was shaking my head at your "kingdom" creation and the notion of anyone investing that much of themselves...
You'd be surprised how much of themselves people invest on an internet forum. With over 18,000 posts you've clearly invested alot.
lain: Or, I think you have it wrong and I don't "admit" it for the same reason I wouldn't "admit" that my favorite flavor of ice cream is trout. 