I'd say he was selected for the time, and it's above me. 

As long as he weilds the sword equally, he should be safe.  Otherwise, he'll create a demon.

Context for the verse is everything... The Apostles at that time were under the horrible treatment of Rome. So Being under them was way harder than our elected government. We are called as Christians to pray for them and submit to their authority as long as it does not supercede our obediant responsibility to God.

If David did not kill King Saul in the cave even knowing that he would be the next king how is it that we should disobey the leaders God has installed over us now?

It is important to support and sustain your leaders. The only time you do not is when your liberties are being trampled upon (such as what happened in Nazi Germany). In today's context, it means that whether or not you voted for Bush or Kerry in 2004, or Obama or McCain in this last election, you support the leaders of the country. Lord knows they need it.

@MC_Shann@xanga - Wrong. I was a Christian for 18 years, and after hearing pastors misinterpret the Bible, I decided to be a stay-at-home Christian.  I read the Bible three times with a Strong's Concordance and it was then and only then did I realize the horror of Christianity.  Try to take Judges 19:22-30 out of context.

@QuantumStorm@xanga - You're telling me that there was once a time when it was completely acceptable to try and pawn off your daughter to a group of stranger rapists, and when they were unimpressed with her, offer your serving wench instead?  And then when they were done with her, left her to die on your porch, and you cut her into 12 pieces for the 12 tribes.

Remind me to never take my time machine back to the time of Judges.

I still don't understand what positive lesson there is to be gleaned from such a story, even in its context.  Be hospitable to strangers? Having a sexy daughter is important?

@QuantumStorm@xanga - Good arguements! My point is,  if the Bible is divinely inspired, if not divinely WRITTEN its contents must be of importance.  I understand from that the Bible, like the Odessey etc. etc. serves as a catalog of people, nevertheless, this passage must serve as a message of some sort.  Ask a Christian and they will tell you that there are no passage in the Bible that aren't important because they came from God. And that kind of thinking is flawed because very little  if any of the Bible is to be taken seriously.

From a literary standpoint the Bible is a helluva read.  As a holy book, the Bible is garbage, as the mentioned story illustrates.

@ficklemistress@xanga - //My point is,  if the Bible is divinely inspired, if not divinely WRITTEN its contents must be of importance.//

Agreed - but of what kind of importance? Historical? Moral? Also, to what degree are the details of a given story important?

From Catholic perspectives, the Bible is, indeed, divinely inspired. This does not prevent the humanity of the writers from expressing themselves by wrapping the divine messages in the literary conventions of the day. Furthermore, this does not mean that every little story in the Bible is to be treated in the exact same manner either.

//nevertheless, this passage must serve as a message of some sort//

Says who? Again, you are committing a generalization fallacy by assuming that every passage in the Bible must have a hidden message. As Counselor Troi said from Star Trek: TNG, "sometimes a cake... is just a cake."

//Ask a Christian and they will tell you that there are no passage in the Bible that aren't important because they came from God. //

Logical fallacy. Just because a passage is important doesn't mean it must contain a hidden message. It may be of important historical note, for instance, in highlighting a significant turning point; however, such an event need not express a moral lesson in order to be considered important.

//As a holy book, the Bible is garbage, as the mentioned story illustrates.//

Generalization fallacy.

@ficklemistress@xanga - Some of my answer here is based off of your conversation with QuantumStorm.  The offering of the daughter was never an acceptable thing to do as an Israelite. Nor is it spoken of as a right thing to do by God. Just because it was done in the bible does not mean it was a good thing. The fact that he offered his daughter and concubine proved a larger part of the entire story of Judges, in that the evil cultures around them were seeping in to their lives and they looked more like the Canaanites than the Israel of God. The last line of Judges says it all... Each one did what was right according to his own eyes.

@ficklemistress@xanga - I'm not sure why you're so upset about a narrative. The text really doesn't make a judgment on any behavior.  It's simply describing what happened.  It doesn't say what the man did is good or bad, it just says "this is what the man did."

Are books about the holocaust "garbage" because you don't like what happened? 

even though we didn`t vote for him has Americans we need to respet him . We need to look toward our senators

@nicolevw@xanga - To be fair, Revelife is intended as a site for blogging about Christianity, not strictly for Christians to blog.  Also, since revelife advertises these posts on the main xanga frontpage, we're kind of asking for comments disagreeing with the faith as a whole.

Besides, don't you think that calling the Bible garbage, as opposed to saying, "Well, it's a nice book but it's not for me," is living in the hot-or-cold reality Jesus said he preferred to being lukewarm? 

-ND

Interesting

Religious Right R.I.P.
Cal Thomas
Thursday, November 06, 2008

When Barack Obama takes the oath of office on Jan. 20, 2009, he will do so in the 30th anniversary year of the founding of the so-called Religious Right. Born in 1979 and midwifed by the late Rev. Jerry Falwell, the Religious Right was a reincarnation of previous religious-social movements that sought moral improvement through legislation and court rulings. Those earlier movements -- from abolition (successful) to Prohibition (unsuccessful) -- had mixed results.

Social movements that relied mainly on political power to enforce a conservative moral code weren't anywhere near as successful as those that focused on changing hearts. The four religious revivals, from the First Great Awakening in the 1730s and 1740s to the Fourth Great Awakening in the late 1960s and early '70s, which touched America and instantly transformed millions of Americans (and American culture as a result), are testimony to that.

Thirty years of trying to use government to stop abortion, preserve opposite-sex marriage, improve television and movie content and transform culture into the conservative Evangelical image has failed. The question now becomes: should conservative Christians redouble their efforts, contributing more millions to radio and TV preachers and activists, or would they be wise to try something else?

I opt for trying something else.

Too many conservative Evangelicals have put too much faith in the power of government to transform culture. The futility inherent in such misplaced faith can be demonstrated by asking these activists a simple question: Does the secular left, when it holds power, persuade conservatives to live by their standards? Of course they do not. Why, then, would conservative Evangelicals expect people who do not share their worldview and view of God to accept their beliefs when they control government?

Too many conservative Evangelicals mistake political power for influence. Politicians who struggle with imposing a moral code on themselves are unlikely to succeed in their attempts to impose it on others. What is the answer, then, for conservative Evangelicals who are rightly concerned about the corrosion of culture, the indifference to the value of human life and the living arrangements of same- and opposite-sex couples?

The answer depends on the response to another question: do conservative Evangelicals want to feel good, or do they want to adopt a strategy that actually produces results? Clearly partisan politics have not achieved their objectives. Do they think they can succeed by committing themselves to 30 more years of the same?

If results are what conservative Evangelicals want, they already have a model. It is contained in the life and commands of Jesus of Nazareth. Suppose millions of conservative Evangelicals engaged in an old and proven type of radical behavior. Suppose they followed the admonition of Jesus to "love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit those in prison and care for widows and orphans," not as ends, as so many liberals do by using government, but as a means of demonstrating God's love for the whole person in order that people might seek Him?

Such a strategy could be more "transformational" than electing a new president, even the first president of color. But in order to succeed, such a strategy would not be led by charismatic figures, who would raise lots of money, be interviewed on Sunday talk shows, author books and make gobs of money.

God teaches in His Word that His power (if that is what conservative Evangelicals want and not their puny attempts at grabbing earthly power) is made perfect in weakness. He speaks of the tiny mustard seed, the seemingly worthless widow's mite, of taking the last place at the table and the humbling of one's self, the washing of feet and similar acts and attitudes; the still, small voice. How did conservative Evangelicals miss this and instead settle for a lesser power, which in reality is no power at all? When did they settle for an inferior "kingdom"?

Evangelicals are at a junction. They can take the path that will lead them to more futility and ineffective attempts to reform culture through government, or they can embrace the far more powerful methods outlined by the One they claim to follow. By following His example, they will decrease, but He will increase. They will get no credit, but they will see results. If conservative Evangelicals choose obscurity and seek to glorify God, they will get much of what they hope for, but can never achieve, in and through politics.

 


<table id="Table1" border="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>





window.google_render_ad();

<td>



if (sWinHTML.toLowerCase().indexOf("<table") > -1)
{
//alert("hidden");
document.getElementById("bottomDivForAd1").innerHTML = document.getElementById("divForAd1").innerHTML;
document.getElementById("divForAd1").style.display = "none"; //.visibility = "hidden";
document.getElementById("divForAd1").innerHTML="";
}
else
{
//alert("visible");
document.getElementById("divForAd1").style.display = "inline";
}


var gDcsId='UA-404425-3'

@ficklemistress@xanga - The passage you mentioned and those like it are there as examples of the depravity of mankind. 

@jmich416@xanga - It sounds like your doing what Romans 13 teaches.  Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor. Romans 13:7