What people are truly righteous?(those who are born of the spirit according to the Bible) GG: According to man's understanding of the bible? Which of the over 33,000 Prot versions. Rather, those who believe in Jesus, repent their sins and follow his commands.
...they are Christians(catholics are not biblical Christians) GG: We are not only biblical Christians, but we were Christians when your ancestors worshipped trees and bayed at the moon. We acknowledge all of God's word not just the part that we agree with.
...just like other Prots disagree with you.(if their teachings do not line up with Scripture then they are not Christians either) GG: What you mean is..."if their teachings do not line up with your traditions of men".
We should separate from you.(I already have) GG: And we really appreciate that too!
GG wrote: What people are truly righteous?(those who are born of the spirit according to the Bible) What people are of light and not also of some darkness? Catholic's are not infidels, they are Christians(catholics are not biblical Christians) who happen to see God's word differently from you...just like other Prots disagree with you.(if their teachings do not line up with Scripture then they are not Christians either) But, I am beginning to think that you have a point. We should separate from you.(I already have)
Hi,my name is Trevor, and you can reach me on [email protected] If you would like to know more about the true state of the roman catholic(universal) cult, called falsely the roman catholic church, please feel free to write to me at the above email address, or if you would like to visit this site, http://pro-gospel.org/x2/index.php you will be enlightened I`m sure. This fellow, Mike Gendron is and ex roman catholic, and now has a ministry to them as an evangelist. I will pray the the true God, creator of heaven and earth, will open the eyes of your understanding ,that you might see and understand. Amen.
What people are truly righteous? What people are of light and not also of some darkness? Catholic's are not infidels, they are Christians who happen to see God's word differently from you...just like other Prots disagree with you. But, I am beginning to think that you have a point. We should separate from you.
GG wrote: If what you say is true, then what right did the Reformers have to declare themselves separate and and independent from their Mother Religion?
This right and commandment:
"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty." 2Corinthians 6
GG wrote: So God took away the authority of the Crown and gave it to the American Colonies....Yes?
The question is: What right did the British colonists in America in 1776 have to declare themselves separate and independent from their mother country which had established them?
The answer to this question about the American Revolution is grounded in biblical principle. In a nutshell, the answer to the present question is based upon understanding the principle of Federal Representation as revealed in the Word of God. This principle is expressed more clearly in the following excerpt from an article titled "Biblical Patriarchy and the Doctrine of Federal Representation", by Rev. Brian M Abshire
...the greatest theologians of the Reformation affirmed the doctrine of "federalism" or "representation" based upon the model found in Genesis. In this view, one man stands for the group. Theologically it referred to Adam representing the entire human race (yet unborn) and therefore when he sinned, we all sinned in him....
"Hereditary rights and privileges impact everyone - including your immigrant father and you - not just monarchs. Why do you see that as "hardly valid"? Would you likewise be happy to see US legislation that would disinherit immigrants to the third and fourth generation as a legitimate "sacrifice" in order to be an American? Strange."
A willing sacrifice isn't imposed by the state, 33k. Such legislation would be unconstitutional, anyway. The immigrant generation ends with the immigrant. No law can change that reality.
My comment on hereditary privilege being hardly valid as a function of being established by the sword stands. There is no relationship between the peasant leaving his few goods to his offspring, and a monarch who desires to do similarly, but inherited an entire kingdom from an ancestor who wrenched it from another. Why are stolen goods not deemed stolen?
The former is a right, outside of state approval. The latter a privilege, which the "state" grants. When the state grants itself privilege, I don't have a problem questioning its validity.
We're obviously not about to agree, so..
I'll just keep my "morally reprehensible" system. If you prefer a privilege based one, that is your right. (I think)
Neil - thank you for the pertinent dynastic summary response, I didn't have space for that earlier.
Curious Mike - your "Big Deal" response is all very well but utterly irrelevant. The issue is injustice and inequality before the law. If immigrant citizens don't want to stand - that's fine, if citizens choose not to vote for them, that's their free choice too. But the law should treat all law abiding citizens equally. Hereditary rights and privileges impact everyone - including your immigrant father and you - not just monarchs. Why do you see that as "hardly valid"? Would you likewise be happy to see US legislation that would disinherit immigrants to the third and fourth generation as a legitimate "sacrifice" in order to be an American? Strange.
"Look at what happened to England when they let a foreigner become King?"
That's a laugh; England has long had foreign dynasties. At first the Celts, then Saxons & Vikings, then Norman-French Plantagenets, then part-Welsh Tudors, then Scots Stuarts & a Dutchman, then German Saxe-Coburgs (or more PC, "Windsors" since WW1).
And I'd say Britain was better off with those boring Saxe-Coburgs, with their more limited German ideas of royal authority, than the autocratic, crypto-Catholic Stuarts who were thrown out (excepting Queen Anne, who had some sense).
"Why ask new citizens to swear alliegance to the USA and then assume them to be unfit to govern? - thereby deeming them to be more likely to be traitors than second, third or tenth generation immigrants."
Immigrants who want to be citizens, and not remain foreigners in a foreign land, are more interested in learning the language, fitting into the culture, feeding their families, and teaching their young to work hard and reap the rewards thereof. I can assure you, my immigrant father had no interest in being a politician. Immigrants of the type that want to be American, and not a hyphenated American, make sacrifice for their young. One sacrifice is, they can't become president. Big deal. They oft can't become dogcatcher where they came from. I've known many foreign-born Americans, and have yet to hear one complain of not being able to be president. On the contrary, they, more than most, are grateful for the blessings of the liberty they never knew before.
"The UK system is based upon hereditary privilege and no different to your parents leaving you their property when they die subject to the conditions of their own prerogative."
Hereditary privilege is granted by those who have established it, historically the ones with the strongest sword. Hardly valid.
The constant modern preoccupation in UK, with liberalisation of all authority, ie the removal of all authority (justice/decency/legislation) proceeding towards anarchy, is the root of the papist attack upon the "Protestant" position in Britain.
During a time of obvious spiritual and moral decline in this nation, it is only to be expected that the Papal antichrist will rise in power. This is recently also demonstrated in Ratzingers visit to the US too. In both countries papistry is increasing by stealth, eg immigration.
Prov 29:16 When the wicked are multiplied, transgression increaseth: but the righteous shall see their fall.
Psalm 12:8 The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted.
The push to allow a monarch to marry a catholic is based on the assumption that no threat would be posed to protestants. It was due to the history of the UK that the act was brought in. If you are not sure get a history book out. It is not discriminatory but based on preservation of freedom. Catholics will only put up with heretics if it suits them. If a monarch marries a catholic then according to the RCC the children must be brought up catholic (see T. Blair). What then - will the catholics allow one of the kids to marry a protestant - what then - will the kids be brought up protestant - of course not. So catholics would hold the monarchy. Only the blind and catholics would think this a good idea. Remember our freedoms are based on protestantism. The RCC church does not and never has embraced free speech and freedom of religion. It says of itself that it is intolerant of non catholics.
GG wrote: I see that you coulda married Cleopatra...you're the King of Denial. Letting foreigners run for President is a bad idea...Obama is as close as we get. Having the US split from the Mother Country is probably one reason that the US could save Britain from the Nazi's.
I would happily give up any position of privilege or honour for the love of my wife. Cleopatra is still available for those suitors more eminently qualified than I.
When I take your logic and return it back to you with interest, then I am merely paying homage to the true King of Denial and will entertain no pretenders to your throne.
Why ask new citizens to swear alliegance to the USA and then assume them to be unfit to govern? - thereby deeming them to be more likely to be traitors than second, third or tenth generation immigrants.
Biblical due process requires the presumption of innocence until proven otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt. People should only be debarred for actual crimes committed or mental incapacity.
The US system is based on prejudice and morally reprehensible.
The UK system is based upon hereditary privilege and no different to your parents leaving you their property when they die subject to the conditions of their own prerogative.
I see that you coulda married Cleopatra...you're the King of Denial. Letting foreigners run for President is a bad idea...Obama is as close as we get. Having the US split from the Mother Country is probably one reason that the US could save Britain from the Nazi's.
GG wrote: If one Catholic can bring down the relm, then it wasn't much of a relm to begin with...was it?
.... and if one third-generation immigrant can lose a colony then .... it wasn't much of a colony to begin with .... was it?
In 6 years of reading these forums the only argument posted on here for the American Revolution that had any potential biblical merit at all was the one that claimed Britain had effectively abandoned her government of it.
Back to the topic I see you have now understood the injustice, inequality, and discrimination in your own glass house.