Non-resistance is Salvation; Resistance is Ruin.

In God We Trust!

This whole post is most troubling and should come to a hault.
Let us talk about what needs to be done.
We need to pray about all our difficulties and trials that lie ahead.
He who alone made the 1st revolution a success, must be the same One to lead us to victory in this revolution. All this arguing about force vs non- force is very unfruitful and needless. If we think we can do anything without Him, then indeed we are doomed to fail.
The most powerful force on earth.......prayer!

Take the income tax bribe that George bush wants to give you to stimulate the Chinese economy, withdraw the money out of the bank in Federal Reserve notes and burn them. You will be following in Ron Paul's example of not accepting government subs and you will also be making the dollar stronger.

Perhaps the week of the Convention, every Ron Paul supporter could call in sick, or close their business in support of Ron Paul for President. For the less motivated they could stock up on food for the week and stay home refusing to go anywhere and not have to buy gas. Endless number of ways to protest, if enough people do it they certainly will not be able to build FEMA camps fast enough.

First I don't believe that the use of force to defend youself and our country is anything like the agression on a populace that never made so much as a verbal threat towards us. Obviously they are all different in nature.
What I implied was that many people claim that Christ justifies the use of force to kill someone in self defense.
Many claim that Christ justifies people to kill in defense of one's country to be free.
And George Bush uses the Christian doctrine as justification for killing people to bring them freedom.
Personally I don't believe killing in any form is a doctrine of Christ, not willing to kill to prove my point, but this is what I believe.
grant

Resistence = Liberty

Even Jesus knew there was a time for action. History has taught us this lesson over and over and over and over....

I certain don't claim to have all the answer either, but I am willing to explore.

I meant to post this thread here...sorry for the confusion!

An abortion clinic is a place someone has the choice to go in and use their services. This certainly does not justify an armed response. However, if someone takes your daughter and forcibly gives her an abortion, you have a right (nay...a DUTY) to respond with force.

Just to clarify my earlier point. And thank you for continuing in this thread. Despite those who would rather you stopped talking, I admire and support debate and free speech. Keep it up.

Until the Election is Won!
Chaplain Steve
Ron Paul - Lion of the Constitution

Tell me how someone who calls themself Pro-Life, to save a child's life can blow up an abortion clinic or shoot a doctor. According to your definition of saving an innocent person from death, they are just doing the right thing and I am wrong for not shooting the abortion doctor. In the same way I will not kill someone in the name of freedom or to "save the country", and I certainly don't need you to kill for me to save the country, since I don't want to be in your debt. So I prefer to try and educate alternatives, people have the right to choose . I don't believe all government employees support FEMA camps.
Here are some options for them to protest, non-violently.
Selective refusal of assistance by government aides
Blocking of lines of command and information
Stalling and obstruction
General administrative noncooperation
Judicial noncooperation
Deliberate inefficiency and selective noncooperation by enforcement agents
Mutiny

Nonviolent revolution, for example, tax strikes, boycotts, mass refusal to obey government orders or a general strike – especially in arms factories.

Fail not in your duties to fight tyranny or you will be slaves.
The peaceful revolution has alot more juice in her yet.
Hell there were ten years of begging england for redress before people started to really take action.
Although if we wait ten years I fear it will be too late!
Prepare for the worst and pray for the best.
I also believe in peace but I will have liberty in this life or it is all for nill!
Give me liberty or give me death!

There are some libertarians who say that no one should employ violence even in defending himself against violence. However, even such Tolstoyans, or "absolute pacifists," would concede the defender's right to employ defensive violence and would merely urge him not to exercise that right. They, therefore, do not disagree with your proposition. In the same way, a temperance advocate would not challenge a man's right to drink liquor, only his wisdom in exercising that right.

There are some libertarians who say that no one should employ violence even in defending himself against violence. However, even such Tolstoyans, or "absolute pacifists," would concede the defender's right to employ defensive violence and would merely urge him not to exercise that right. They, therefore, do not disagree with your proposition. In the same way, a temperance advocate would not challenge a man's right to drink liquor, only his wisdom in exercising that right.

I will take responsibility for my soul, thanks. How about you do the same? If you feel you're being called to do this, knock yourself out. My "moral compass" tells me that the masses of people who have been lied and manipulated to such an extent that some unkind folks now call the "sheep" are not the folks to turn over the reins of society to.
Separating the church and state - it is a beautiful thing. Separating the church and your spirituality is even better, I highly recommend it -especially in the current political / religious situation.

Perhaps you are right, perhaps I am working for uncle George...oh, I mean President Bush. Only thing is, he uses the exact same arguements you sustain. He supports the exact same "Christian" doctrine of justifiable war.
I don't, but I would think I should have the right to present an alternative.

This message is great!! for those againt RP and the r3volution.

....another poster here is correct, that it's a matter of what you believe to be moral. If you feel that your absolute best effort is to lay down on the RR tracks and get squished by the neocons that don't give a shit about you and your beliefs...well, that's your perogative. Leave ALL of your religious material out of this forum....it's pointless and to me, offensive. Remember the separation of church and state. We're talking about government here....or lack there-of...this is no place for religious sermons.
I for one, will be spending my stimulous check on weaponry and ammo. I hope you're getting better prepared for what's comming to this once-great nation of ours.
------------------
BC
If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention!

As you say 6 million Jews were killed who didn't resist Hitler, and yet the ones we remember most are the small handful of them that held off the Nazis for days until they ran out of ammunition.
Unfortunately this is usually the case, we remember the ones that resist, we usually glorify them with statues, because that is what our history books usually teach us to do. As you say 6 million Jews died for what they believed was the right way and we remember a handful that didn't. A handful whose actions lead to justify the invasion and formation of the Zionist State of Israel. So today because of a handful who chose to resist we continue to see that war has not ended, but that it continues on and on and on and on.
6 million Jews died not resisting because they did not support the concept of war, we ignore them, yet a handful of Jews resist so we listen to them and justify war.

With your periodic 'Lay down and die before resisting' crap.

Here's the deal. You have the right to lie down and be trampled under jackbooted feet if you wish. You have the right to tell other people whatever you choose. You have the right to do those things here.

OUR FATHERS, GRANDFATHERS, AND FOREFATHERS DIED SECURING AND DEFENDING THOSE RIGHTS.

Oh and by the way, as you love to try to support your position using the Bible, why don't you tell me who the only people were that Jesus was recorded to have gotten angry enough to use force with. Or have you decided that that part of His Word isn't as important?

There is an account in the Book of Mormon (Alma chapter 24) about a group of people who did just what you propose. They lay down their arms and allowed themselves to be slaughtered rather than defend themselves against the attack. The result was that more than 1000 were killed, but also more than that number were converted from the attackers.

The reason the story is so remarkable is that it actually happened and we can see the result. In all other cases people were taught and encouraged to fight for their freedoms and families. Evil would like nothing more than to overcome an unresisting opponent.

In this case, the people who were killed had been previously wicked and blood-thirsty Lamanites. As a result of their conversion to Jesus Christ, they repented of their wickedness and took an oath (back then an oath meant something) that they would never again shed blood. They feared if they broke the oath, God would not forgive them again. For awhile, it worked. The enemies' (non-converted Lamanites) hearts were softened and they went to fight other people, but eventually they returned. At this time, the converts were faced with the choice of total destruction, or fleeing to their previous enemies (Nephites) and asking for mercy and protection at whatever cost. The Nephites trusted the conversion was real and gave them land and protection in exchange for support for the protecting armies.

Many years later, the Lamanites again attacked the Nephites and these converted Lamanites struggled to see their new friends killed and not do anything to help. They were tempted to take up arms in their defense and were talked out of it because of the oath they had made many years earlier. The solution was that the children of these people who had not made the oath joined up to help the Nephites against the attacking Lamanites and were a strong support, eventually helping to make victory possible.

The point of this long summary is to illustrate what a complex issue we face in deciding what course to take. We are in a battle, and the consequences are permanent. No one can make that decision for anyone else, but we should each encourage one another in the actions we decide on in good faith, trusting that God will make the victory sure in His own time through His own means.

One last point is that the instigators of these ideological wars were people who had once been Nephites, not the Lamanites themselves. These former Nephites were not swayed by the unresisting death of over 1000 people, nor were they content to let someone go their own way and live their own lives. If our political battles are against forces who know the Constitution and have chosen to follow another path, they will be unrelenting, and take every inch we give them. Our greatest victory in concessions we make are with those who think they are doing the right thing until they come face to face with us, our methods, and our motives and realize we are fighting for what they can see to be right. In that case the compromises about delegates and voting procedures may result in many more sympathetic National delegates in September who have witnessed themselves the tactics in the State Conventions.

Yeah tell the 6 million+ dead Jews who didn't resist Hitlers minions they were in less danger... Sigh!

And of the those Jews who do we remember most? A small handful of them out gunned and outnumbered in the Warsaw ghetto who resisted and held off the Nazis for days until they ran out of ammunition.

The bible also teaches there is a season for all things. Christ also taught to sell your cloak and buy a sword. People who hang their hats on a few passages to their liking excluding all others, setting aside their god given reason and logic always miss the mark.

-----
Please Visit New Freelanders
Self Reliance & Preparedness Forums

when poster started this subject last time, there were perhaps three of us who took objection to what he was saying . he was VERY persistent ,siting an excerpt from tolstoi and continuining to keep his thread bumped ,,,over 40 some odd times i believe.however i notice today the tone here is much different, thus far, hes not getting any support with his lay down and die philosophy and hes not keeping it bumped,,,sorta bad marketing for him i guess...i still say hes paid clergy for fema.

Yeah, let's all hold hands and sing Kum-by-yah while being shipped off to the FEMA camps and they'll be so touched that martial law will be instantly repealed along with the income tax, and everyone will hold hands and do spins in a flowering meadow. I'm for non-violent means for as long as possible, and I hope with everything in me that we can change things without force, but I'm also a realist. One of the first things mentioned in the Constitution is the right to LIFE and LIBERTY. That means that when either or both of those things are threatened that I have the RIGHT to do what is necessary to protect them. America wouldn't even exist without the Revolutionary war (a subject of never ending praise and adoration in American History). What if those patriots has whined and pissed their pants? As I said, I hope it doesn't go that way, but I don't see these corrupt psycopaths giving up their power by killing them with kindness and logic.

http://www.myspace.com/do...
"Doc" Holladay
Nashville, TN

toward the moneychangers...

Dear mister preacher,
I get the same answer from the priests as I just got from you. It is sad that the ideas of wolves have infiltrated most all institutional churches. From the time of Constantine, when he perverted and used the message of Christ to support his Roman empire, until today, many still claim IN HOC SIGNO VINCES. Let me inform you my brother it is not a symbol of Christ...
This is the same arguement I got as a Pro-Life leader. Many claimed to be Pro-Life and yet justified killing doctors as a way to save babies lives. This does not lead to a solution, but only more problems.
grant

Let me start by saying that this is not an open call for violence. In fact, I strongly believe that we are not at a point as a nation where armed insurrection is the last and final remedy for our cause. We are a long way from that. Further, Dr. Paul has set the example for our cause - non-violent.

This posting concerns me though...and as a Christian, a preacher and a citizen of what is left of this republic, I feel I should respond.

One issue Christians grapple with is, "should Christians use physical force to defend themselves?" There are many Christians who have different opinions on this issue.

Christian pacifists believe it is always wrong to injure other humans, no matter what the circumstances. The same principles supporting pacifism carry over to nonresistance - the belief that any form of self-defense is wrong.

I do not believe pacifism (or nonresistance) is the essential point of Christ’s teaching in Matthew 5:38-42. Nor do I believe Christ was teaching to “turn the other cheek” in virtually all circumstances. Even Christ did not literally turn the other cheek when smitten by a member of the Sanhedrin (John 18:22-23).

The backdrop to the "turn the other cheek" teaching is that the Jews of that time period considered it an insult to be slapped in the face, much in the same way that we would interpret someone spitting in our face. The principle taught in the Sermon on the Mount would seem to be that Christians should not retaliate when insulted or slandered (cf. Rom. 12:17-21). Such insults do not threaten a Christian’s personal safety. The question of rendering insult for insult, however, is very different from defending oneself against a mugger, a government agent violently and illegally violating your family, or a woman using a weapon or martial arts against a rapist.

In terms of following Christ’s example, one must remember that His personal nonresistance at the cross was intertwined with His unique calling. He did not evade His arrest because it was God’s will for Him to fulfill His prophetic role as the redemptive Lamb of God (Matt. 26:52-56). During His ministry, however, He refused to be arrested because God’s timing for His death had not yet come (John 8:59). Thus, Christ’s unique nonresistance during the Passion does not mandate against self-protection.

A Biblical Case for Self-Defense

Though the Bible is silent regarding "self defense," it nonetheless records many accounts of fighting and warfare. The providence of God in war is exemplified by His name YHWH Sabaoth (“The LORD of hosts” - Exod. 12:41). God is portrayed as the omnipotent Warrior-Leader of the Israelites. God, the LORD of hosts, raised up warriors among the Israelites called the shophetim in the Hebrew (savior-deliverers). Samson, Deborah, Gideon, and others were anointed by the Spirit of God to conduct war. The New Testament commends Old Testament warriors for their military acts of faith (Heb. 11:30-40). Moreover, it is significant that although given the opportunity to do so, none of the New Testament saints - nor even Jesus - are ever seen informing a military convert that he needed to resign from his line of work (Matt. 8:5-13; Luke 3:14).

These are the passages of the Bible that inspired many in the Revolutionary War, to take up arms against King George - in the effort to gain liberty.

Prior to His crucifixion, Jesus revealed to His disciples the future hostility they would face and encouraged them to sell their outer garments in order to purchase a sword (Luke 22:36-38; cf. 2 Cor. 11:26-27). Here the “sword” (maxairan) is a “dagger or short sword [that] belonged to the Jewish traveler’s equipment as protection against robbers and wild animals.” It is perfectly clear from this passage that Jesus approved of self-defense.

Self-defense may actually result in one of the greatest examples of human love. Christ said, “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:14). When protecting one’s family or neighbor, a Christian is unselfishly risking his or her life for the sake of others.

The late Francis Schaeffer put it this way: The Bible is clear here: I am to love my neighbor as myself, in the manner needed, in a practical way, in the midst of the fallen world, at my particular point of history. This is why I am not a pacifist. Pacifism in this poor world in which we live - this lost world - means that we desert the people who need our greatest help. What if you come upon a big, burly man beating a tiny tot to death and plead with him to stop and he refuses. How does a loving person respond? Love means that I stop him in any way I can, including hitting him. To me this is not only necessary for humanitarian reasons: it is loyalty to Christ’s commands concerning Christian love in a fallen world. What about the little girl? If I desert her to the bully, I have deserted the true meaning of Christian love - responsibility to my neighbor.

J. P. Moreland and Norman Geisler likewise say: “to permit murder when one could have prevented it is morally wrong. To allow a rape when one could have hindered it is an evil. To watch an act of cruelty to children without trying to intervene is morally inexcusable. In brief, not resisting evil is an evil of omission, and an evil of omission can be just as evil as an evil of commission. Any man who refuses to protect his wife and children against a violent intruder fails them morally” (emphases added).

So, given the clear teaching of Scripture, I have to say that we as Christians are to use force for self-defense against crime and injustice.

Fortunately, we are not at this point yet, with our nation. Hopefully, we never will get there...go Ron Paul!

Until the Election is Won!
Chaplain Steve
Ron Paul - Lion of the Constitution