Re: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag

[Lance Muir]

I know Bill Taylor. I have yet to see him 'miss the point' of anyone's post.I do not know David Miller. I'd say that he appears to have the ability to 'get the point' of anyone's post.(I exclude my own posts which upon re-reading sometimes even I don't 'get') However, valuing a 'Popperian' approach to pursuance of 'truth' he seems to value 'shaggy dog' humor over 'one-liners' It's a kind of 'forest' and 'trees' thingy.  From: Bill Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: December 02, 2004 23:28 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag   ----- Original Message ----- From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 8:04 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag Bill, I think you are missing the point of the David�s question:  Do you argue the same for the leaders of the other countries who also became independent from their colonizing nations, from Canada to Mexico to the South American nations?   Izzy, my point is not to argue about how or why nations are formed, but rather to distinguish between Christian and non-Christian behavior in the nation-forming process. The reason I take issue with your (and many Christians') position vis-a-vis America, is because of your insistence that the Revolution was a godly endeavor. As we witnessed today, man can find all kinds of philosophical ways to justify his greedy endeavors. My position is that Christians are called to love their neighbors, without regard for what particular form their neighbors' government takes. Let God be the one who establishes and overthrows governments (Where in Scripture are Christians called to do this? To the contrary Scripture plainly states, "Therefore, whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves" Romans 13.2). Let God be the one who changes the hearts of governing authorities; in the meantime we are to obey God and submit to those authorities, even if it means we give up our lives in the process -- hardly a pacifistic response!   Is it any small wonder, Izzy, that Paul wraps up his section concerning submitting to governing authorities, not with locutions imploring Christians to rise up and fight, but with instructions on love instead? "Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, 'You shall not commit adultery,' 'You shall not murder,' 'You shall not steal,' 'You shall not bear false witness,' 'You shall not covet,' and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. And do this, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep; for now our salvation is nearer than when we first believed" (Romans 13.8-11).   To get to your question regarding other countries and their establishment, the same holds true with them: the Christian's mandate does not change at border crossings; we are to love our neighbors no matter where we live.   Why do you ONLY complain about America�s gaining independence?   Because America is the topic of discussion. If there are other nations who claimed to have been founded on Christian "principals" and if those principals included the forceful overthrow of another government, then I will certainly take issue with their claim as well.   Why the anti-American bias?   I am not anti-American, Izzy -- far from it. I love America. I am just not duped into believing that the motives of many of her founding fathers were as godly as you make them out to be.     Bill   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Taylor Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 6:04 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Trapped in the Flag   Why must one provide an example of a hypothetical form that obedience could take, in order that the biblical exhortation of submitting to governing authorities might stand? The truthfulness of my assertion does not hinge upon an example. It is either true or it's false. In other words, I don't have to speculate about what things may have been like if the Christians among the colonists had lived in obedience.    But if that's what you want, I will:   You state, "I did not see any examples yesterday where the founding fathers missed an opportunity to remedy the problem without declaring independence.  If you think the taxation without representation issue is one, maybe you can educate me . . ." What if, say, instead of conjuring up voices in their heads from "God" telling them on that occasion it was okay to circumvent Romans 13, they would have just refused to pay their taxes until that time that they had representation; then when the king's men came to execute judgment upon them, the Christians in the group could have pleaded no context and let the king's men execute a few thousand of them -- or as many as the king desired. Why? Well because they were godly men, who believed in their heart of hearts that it was their duty to God to submit to the governing authorities -- even if that meant taking up their crosses daily. IF, in their faithfulness, they were right, concerning their refusal to pay taxes without representation, God, being always faithful, may have softened the king's heart -- even if after a few thousand murders -- whereby the king would have made concessions providing for a representative form of government, in which case the end could have been the same, Independence, but there would have been none of this voices-in-my-head/prophet/let's-overthrow-the-government stuff, and likewise no confusion over when or whether it is the appropriate time to obey God's written word.   David, my friend, you are really plucking on my last nerve. I've got to have a break from you for a few days. When I think I can bear you again, I will get back to you. Peace be with you.     Bill