KevinR
Group Commander
2003, 2009 Indy Squadron Champion
Posts: 753
|
Post by KevinR on Mar 26, 2010 16:20:39 GMT -5
Sorry but I do not agree. Divine appointment could encompass the way you put it but it could also just be God nudging a certain individual in the way he wants. If you believe in divine appointments to public office, why bother with elections? Let's just put anyone who thinks they've been "nudged" by some sort of god into public office. It's amazing to me that instead of responding to the Scriptures posted with substance you resort to statements like this.
|
|
KevinR
Group Commander
2003, 2009 Indy Squadron Champion
Posts: 753
|
Post by KevinR on Mar 26, 2010 16:23:45 GMT -5
Stephen my friend are you really willing to submit your views to the light of Scripture for examination? Yes. If you were really so confident in the outcome of a debate you would have accepted the challenge weeks ago. I have been extremely tied up with finishing a final in my accelerated accounting class. Between that and family and church I've stayed busy. I respond when I can. I would always be willing to participate in a formal debate with you on this subject if you would like. I have offered before. We can do it on TOL. I'll even suggest to Knight we make it a Battle Royale, which I've had the privilege of doing before. So do you want to participate in a moderated debate on the subject of "Is all government inherently evil"? Or something of the like?
|
|
KevinR
Group Commander
2003, 2009 Indy Squadron Champion
Posts: 753
|
Post by KevinR on Mar 26, 2010 23:34:57 GMT -5
I was also here responding in this thread from the time you opened it. Please provide the post or the link where I repeatedly rejected your challenges of online moderated debate or apologize for bearing false witness.
|
|
KevinR
Group Commander
2003, 2009 Indy Squadron Champion
Posts: 753
|
Post by KevinR on Mar 27, 2010 3:25:02 GMT -5
If you believe in divine appointments to public office, why bother with elections? Let's just put anyone who thinks they've been "nudged" by some sort of god into public office. You know what is really discouraging about discussing politics with you. After all these years you still don't understand or get it. I've repeated myself to you hundreds of times I think over the years and you still either refuse to get it or refuse to accept it, one or the other. So here it is for you again: We (or at least me) are NOT saying that every government on earth is and has been established by God. We do NOT believe that every person who claims to be called by God to be king or leader should be. Here is the position for you again and it's different from the one you've said you were taught in Sunday School: God established GOVERNMENT. God established authority structures. Those authority structures have a job to do. God gave them that job. The Bible is plain about that and the verses I quoted you plainly show this. God did not establish Saddam. God did not establish the USSR. God did not establish the USA. God did not establish China. Some countries He might choose to bless from time to time more than others because the people within that country are more willing to turn to Him and ask for His leadership and His guidance. God's moral laws are still binding and good. We should still not murder, we should still not steal, we should still not commit adultery. If we do, and the law punishes us for it, THEY ARE DOING WHAT GOD CREATED THEM TO DO!!!!! If a government orders you to murder, steal, or commit adultery, you should fear God over the government and refuse. That is why the Scripture said "Fear God, honor the king." Please make sure you have read this entire statement if you wish to continue this discussion. Thank you. Ignored.
|
|
KevinR
Group Commander
2003, 2009 Indy Squadron Champion
Posts: 753
|
Post by KevinR on Mar 27, 2010 3:25:30 GMT -5
By what right does one man rule another? There are authority structures that are God-given. And there are authority structures that are taken. This is a complex question you've asked, because the important thing here is not the "right" but your definition of the word "Rule". For example: No individual man has the "Right" to "rule" over another man in a tyrannical way, taking away his freedoms and rights unjustly. But as Michael has already tried to answer you, there are some authority structures in our lives that God Himself has put into place. Such as: In a home. A father should literally rule well over his own household, and is instructed to do so in Scripture. In fact, one of the qualifications for a pastor or elder can be found in 1 Timothy 5 and it says that he must be: 4 one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence 5 (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?)In Luke 12:35-48, we find a parable from the Lord Jesus Himself illustrating the differences between a good "ruler" and a bad "ruler". From that parable and a similar one in Matthew 24, it is apparent at its very base that the idea of one man being a "ruler" over another isn't inherently bad in and of itself, it's how that ruler behaves himself with the authority that's been given him, WHATEVER the authority might be.... 1 Timothy 5: 17 Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine.Stephen is it your position that the Word of God does not provide plenty of clear examples of God granting one man authority over another? Ignored
|
|
KevinR
Group Commander
2003, 2009 Indy Squadron Champion
Posts: 753
|
Post by KevinR on Mar 27, 2010 3:26:52 GMT -5
Then as a government, I am established by God, Onward with the debate! Straw man argument based on what you were taught in Sunday School by your own admission. Not all governments are established by God. In fact I can't think of any right now that were established BY God. Do you want to abandon this or continue wrongly stating our position? Government in general, obedience to various laws WAS established by God. Such as "Do not murder". And all governments have that responsibility before God. God says killing people who should not die, and keeping people alive who should not live profanes Him. (See Ezekiel 13:19) Ignored.
|
|
KevinR
Group Commander
2003, 2009 Indy Squadron Champion
Posts: 753
|
Post by KevinR on Mar 27, 2010 3:28:25 GMT -5
On and on I can go back and find so many instances of trying to communicate with you, and not receiving the least bit of courtesy of even reading what was said. And I was "running like a jackrabbit"?
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Mar 27, 2010 9:46:42 GMT -5
On and on I can go back and find so many instances of trying to communicate with you, and not receiving the least bit of courtesy of even reading what was said. And I was "running like a jackrabbit"? I did not say you avoided communication. I said you avoided debate rules. That is a truthful statement.
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Mar 27, 2010 10:48:42 GMT -5
Kevin, step away from your puter for a few days and let your emotions settle before reading this.
Now... I have stated my belief that you have repeatedly avoided the debate rules suggested in the "Fair Debate and Seeking Truth" thread. Let's take an objective look at the basis of my statement:
My initial posts on that thread suggested the use of standard debate rules. The very first words you spoke in response were "I see no point in continuing" (reply #3). If that statement is not a direct rejection of the debate rules just suggested, then yes, I certainly apologize. However, it seems irrational that anyone could come to any other conclusion.
I specifically requested that no posts be made on that thread unless they complied with the debate rules. In replies 4 and 5, you continued to ignore them.
In post #7, yet again I asked that participants on that thread abide by debate rules, and asked you to continue non-compliant posts elsewhere.
In post #10, you appeared to accept debate rules in the first sentence but then immediately said that my position on the forum made impossible the rules you had just agreed to follow! ?? This essentially killed all further efforts at establishing some basic rules of debate.
I do not believe that is it reasonable for anyone to read those posts and come to any other conclusion than the one I suggested. And even if my conclusion was wrong, I believe a fair reading should compel you to - at the very least - understand that my mistake was not entirely unjustified.
However, if your true intent was to strictly abide by the recommended debate rules, then my suggestion that you have avoided debate rules is entirely incorrect and again, I apologize.
|
|
KevinR
Group Commander
2003, 2009 Indy Squadron Champion
Posts: 753
|
Post by KevinR on Mar 27, 2010 11:13:06 GMT -5
My stating that I saw no point in continuing the discussion had nothing to do with your "debate" rules. Where you got them from was absolutely irrelevant, the bottom line was that it was not necessary to close the other thread and open this one and act like you did.
That being said I provided multiple posts on this thread that followed even your stated rules of debate. We never at any time entered into a formal debate and to suggest I rejected it would be dishonest. I actually had been thinking about it since you mentioned it. And last night the light bulb went on to have it on a great website and the owner of that site offered us his most public debate forum......
|
|
KevinR
Group Commander
2003, 2009 Indy Squadron Champion
Posts: 753
|
Post by KevinR on Mar 27, 2010 11:13:38 GMT -5
So your responses to me were completely uncalled for.
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Mar 27, 2010 11:33:35 GMT -5
My stating that I saw no point in continuing the discussion had nothing to do with your "debate" rules. They were not "my" debate rules. I did not write them. They were not "your" debate rules. You didn't write them, either. They are simply "debate rules" written by debate teams for use in standard debate forums. This is why you should not respond when you are in an emotional state. Relax. Turn of your puter for a few days. Learn to smile again. Immediately after my suggestion that we adopt debate rules (to avoid this very situation), you did, in fact, say that you saw "no point in continuing." It is not unreasonable to believe that this post was written in response to the ones immediately preceding it. Perhaps mistaken, but not dishonest. Perhaps your statement was somehow completely and totally disconnected from the immediately preceding posts, but it was not evident to me or, I believe, any reasonable person. People tend to interpret words in the context in which they are written. But if I or, I believe, any other reasonable person, were to read that thread for the first time ever, I would have to come to the same conclusion. If that conclusion is mistaken and your posts actually were intended to accept and apply the suggested debate rules, it was not evident in your posts and again, I apologize.
|
|
KevinR
Group Commander
2003, 2009 Indy Squadron Champion
Posts: 753
|
Post by KevinR on Mar 27, 2010 11:39:17 GMT -5
It's not like this thread was the beginning of the discussion. I was talking about the way that you closed the other thread and how you were acting. In light of your behavior I saw no purpose in continuing. But I have continued to try for weeks upon weeks to discuss the issues with you anyway.
|
|
KevinR
Group Commander
2003, 2009 Indy Squadron Champion
Posts: 753
|
Post by KevinR on Mar 27, 2010 11:45:13 GMT -5
So in reading « Reply #3 on Feb 27, 2010, 5:35pm » in its entirety AND THEN
reading « Reply #10 on Feb 27, 2010, 7:09pm »
Someone would come to the conclusion that I rejected a debate with you? Interesting. In fact in reply #10 I clearly stated:
Sorry if you don't read everything I post, but it was there.
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Mar 27, 2010 11:45:48 GMT -5
I was talking about the way that you closed the other thread There is nothing in the text of your thread to indicate that you were referring to anything other than the obvious posts immediately preceding it. As a result, I naturally concluded that you were rejecting the suggested debate rules. This is precisely why I later stated that you were avoiding the suggested debate rules. That is not an illogical or irrational sequence of thought nor is it intellectually dishonest. If you were actually accepting the suggested debate rules, it was not obvious from your responses and I again apologize.
|
|