Identifying evil

[Molly]

Not that I expect to get any sympathy for this on here but...

I've been trying to change their timeline for years.

You can't wake people up--they refuse to wake up.

You can't do it by changing events.  They just regroup and absorb the change and nullify it.

It can be --and it has been--delayed.  But how to change it?

I know there must be a way.


That is the meaning of the rock cut from the mountain, though not by human hands, that crushed to pieces the statue of iron, bronze, clay, silver, and gold. The great God was showing the king what will happen in the future. The dream is true, and its meaning is certain."  --Dan 2:45

I came to realize at some point that you cannot set up the Kingdom by means of the arm of flesh - only the stone cut out WITHOUT hands can do that.  Men and empires have been trying to set up the Kingdom ever since the time of Nimrod, most currently the USA.  All will fail, except He for whom the throne of David is reserved.

Yes, I agree.  But, I had to prove it to myself lol.

But, that stone that crushes the feet of clay, aren't we part of that stone?



And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.  Mat 16:18

[sheila]

great thread,Molly,Laz............when the Holy spirit dwells in us..and we are walking in this earth..we are

  God's[spirit] feet..and the earth His footstool..Basically that image man made will stumble on the Christ stone

  that is His spirit in us.  works of man's hands always crumble eventually...the work of God...

   'by my spirit' will never fail to succeed in what He sent it for.  when the feet of iron and clay/man's image/works

  is striken in it's foot   God just shakes the dust off His feet..and goes on His way........but what will that

  pile of rubble do...without the spirit of God in it?.

[Molly]

....the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

--Second Amendment





What is it that Diane Feinstein doesn't understand about 'shall not be infringed?'




"infringe"

Act so as to limit or undermine (something);

[reFORMer]

....the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

--Second Amendment





What is it that Diane Feinstein doesn't understand about 'shall not be infringed?'




"infringe"

Act so as to limit or undermine (something);

"The weapons of our warfare are not carnal..." (2 C 10⁴) This is God's word about what kind of weapon and war establishes His kingdom.  Absolutely NOT guns, bombs, tanks and swords.  The strongholds we pull down are in the heavenlies.  This war is, "Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ..." (1 C 10⁵)

[reFORMer]

Not that I expect to get any sympathy for this on here but...

I've been trying to change their timeline for years.

You can't wake people up--they refuse to wake up.

You can't do it by changing events.  They just regroup and absorb the change and nullify it.

It can be --and it has been--delayed.  But how to change it?

I know there must be a way.


That is the meaning of the rock cut from the mountain, though not by human hands, that crushed to pieces the statue of iron, bronze, clay, silver, and gold. The great God was showing the king what will happen in the future. The dream is true, and its meaning is certain."  --Dan 2:45

I came to realize at some point that you cannot set up the Kingdom by means of the arm of flesh - only the stone cut out WITHOUT hands can do that.  Men and empires have been trying to set up the Kingdom ever since the time of Nimrod, most currently the USA.  All will fail, except He for whom the throne of David is reserved.

Yes, I agree.  But, I had to prove it to myself lol.

But, that stone that crushes the feet of clay, aren't we part of that stone?



And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.  Mat 16:18

"Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence." (John 18³⁶)

God sets up His kingdom, birthing Adam humans into it by marrying them with the Holy Spirit and rebirthing them into God.  There is not some other king yet to come.  Jesus' kingdom is the kingdom of God.  His servants, those that follow Him, do NOT fight with carnal weapons to achieve Jesus' reign in the earth.  "The weapons of our warfare are not carnal..." (2 C 104)  This is not going to change.  They, "...are mighty through God."  What is being won is the thoughts in the hearts of men, that they would come to walk in a consciousness of God, aligned with His will.  This is His kingdom.  It is within.  And, "The glory of the knowledge of the LORD will cover the earth as the waters cover the sea."

The Image with the head of Gold was ground to powder and blown away when the Roman Empire became the Holy Roman Empire.  That being fulfilled is Preterism.  Of the four beasts of Daniel that apply to our times, the first three of them have had their day.  This also is Preterism.  We are now in the time of the fourth beast, the United Nations world government that is yet maturing.  Not all its horns are grown in.  This is Futurism.  That it is a beast, the flesh's animal impulses, is Symbolism.

[ded2daworld]

Are we not to act as Jesus would act? Do we not continually pray to be conformed to the image of his Son?
Did Jesus not say, "turn the other cheek and rejoice when others spitefully abuse you? Did Jesus ever encourage retaliation or revenge? Did Jesus ever defend himself even though he easily could have?
Do we pray for others to know Jesus so that they can act like someone else?
I think the difference was that in the Old testament, everything was concerned with the present life. That is not the covenant which we are under. We are under a covenant where God says, "vengeance is MINE" and "I will repay" Since God's repayment to us "pressed down, stirred and shaken up , then filled to overflowing"
What are we concerned with? Keeping the material blessings that came from God in the first place? The life that came from God in the first place. Are we trusting guns or God? Does anything happen that God does not allow?
Does it please God for us to act like Jesus and realize we are just strangers in a strange land for a brief time and that ALL we have is on loan from God? Or is God more pleased when we spend HIS money on guns, self defense, target practice, alarm systems and survivalist strategies?

God speaks to some one way and to others, another. After much prayer and contemplation, Be sure of what you are called to do

[Molly]

Every time a major population is disarmed by their government in modern history, there is a genocide threatening in the wings.   I am not in the mood to be a victim of a genocide, nor do I believe God wants me to be such since I was born in a country whose highest law specifically meant to safeguard against such.  This is my birthright that my fellow countrymen want to sell for a bowl of pottage.

He who doesn't know history is doomed to repeat it.

So I will repeat: 

What is it that people do not understand about shall not be infringed?



List of Genocides--the human cost of gun control:

Ottoman Turkey 1915-1917
Armenians (mostly Christians)
1-1.5 million
Art. 166, Pen. Code, 1866
& 1911 Proclamation, 1915 • Permits required •Government list of owners
•Ban on possession

Soviet Union 1929-1945
Political opponents;
farming communities
20 million
Resolutions, 1918
Decree, July 12, 1920
Art. 59 & 182, Pen. code, 1926 •Licensing of owners
•Ban on possession
•Severe penalties

Nazi Germany
& Occupied Europe 1933-1945
Political opponents;
Jews; Gypsies;
critics; "examples"
20 million
Law on Firearms & Ammun., 1928
Weapon Law, March 18, 1938
Regulations against Jews, 1938 •Registration & Licensing
•Stricter handgun laws
•Ban on possession

China, Nationalist 1927-1949
Political opponents;
army conscripts; others
10 million
Art. 205, Crim. Code, 1914
Art. 186-87, Crim. Code, 1935 •Government permit system
•Ban on private ownership

China, Red 1949-1952
1957-1960
1966-1976
Political opponents;
Rural populations
Enemies of the state
20-35 million
Act of Feb. 20, 1951
Act of Oct. 22, 1957 •Prison or death to "counter-revolutionary criminals" and anyone resisting any government program
•Death penalty for supply guns to such "criminals"

Guatemala 1960-1981
Mayans & other Indians;
political enemies
100,000-200,000
Decree 36, Nov 25 •Act of 1932
Decree 386, 1947
Decree 283, 1964 •Register guns & owners •Licensing with high fees
•Prohibit carrying guns
•Bans on guns, sharp tools
•Confiscation powers
Uganda 1971-1979 Christians
Political enemies 300,000 Firearms Ordinance, 1955
Firearms Act, 1970 •Register all guns & owners •Licenses for transactions
•Warrantless searches •Confiscation powers

Cambodia
(Khmer Rouge) 1975-1979
Educated Persons;
Political enemies
2 million
Art. 322-328, Penal Code
Royal Ordinance 55, 1938 •Licenses for guns, owners, ammunition & transactions
•Photo ID with fingerprints
•License inspected quarterly

Rwanda 1994
Tutsi people
800,000
Decree-Law No. 12, 1979 •Register guns, owners, ammunition •Owners must justify need •Concealable guns illegal •Confiscating powers




http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm

[ded2daworld]

I guess the difference is I was talking about the Bible
and you were talking about the constitution.  :Peace2:
I'm not intertested in bad things happening to me or my family either but
I am interested in rejoicing and praising God "In ALL things"
as the bible suggests.

And if you want to talk about entire countries, what happened to the Jews
when other countries decimated them at the allowance and plan of God?

[micah7:9]

Php 3:20  For our citizenship is in the heavens, whence also a Saviour we await--the Lord Jesus Christ--
Php 3:21  who shall transform the body of our humiliation to its becoming conformed to the body of his glory, according to the working of his power, even to subject to himself the all things.

That tells me who I vote for :dsunny:

[ded2daworld]

Micah - absolutely  :thumbsup:

[Lazarus Short]

Given the nominal subject of this thread, yeah I know all about thread drift, I noticed this article today, and decided to link it, as it seemed to bear on what we're discussing [can't vouch for the author]:

http://www.stuartwilde.com/2013/01/understanding-global-demonic-possession-through-face-recognition/

[micah7:9]

WOW!

[ded2daworld]

Laz - I read the whole article. I would like to have seen a photo of the author.
I think he's either insane or just rying to make a buck selling stuff to "help" someone
think the way he does.
Shouldn't the reverse have been true? Based on what this "Wilde" man said, everyone that looked at Jesus should have been
instantly aware of the intense love within him, the God incarnate. - They didn't. He was so ordinary looking he had to be pointed out and "his look was such that NONE would desire him"
Down through history people have tried to label a mentality or prediliction based solely on physical appearances - just one more way for someone to say to another "You are NOT my brother - I am saved and love God - you hate God and are evil." :Peace2:

[reFORMer]

Every time a major population is disarmed by their government in modern history, there is a genocide threatening in the wings.   I am not in the mood to be a victim of a genocide, nor do I believe God wants me to be such since I was born in a country whose highest law specifically meant to safeguard against such.  This is my birthright that my fellow countrymen want to sell for a bowl of pottage.

He who doesn't know history is doomed to repeat it.

So I will repeat: 

What is it that people do not understand about shall not be infringed?

http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm

I believe there are just wars.  God's command says, "You shall not kill."  That includes me.  You shall not kill me.  If I love the Lord my God with all my heart, mind, soul, and strength, then I act with force that you shall not kill me and my family, upholding God's Law.  This kind of reasoning is the basis for just war.

When the religious establishment came in the middle of the night to arrest Jesus in the garden where Jesus and 11 of His disciples were resting and praying, they came "with swords, and staves, and torches."  Jesus had asked His disciples if they had a sword.  Whether it was one or two, I don't remember; but, He told them what they had was sufficient.  Peter used the sword to cut off the ear of Malkus the High Priest's servant.  Jesus reattached the ear, healing it.  And said, "...unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?" (Jn 18¹¹)  "Then said Jesus unto him,...all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword." (Mt 26⁵²)  I'm very ambivalent.  I thought I was a radical pacifist for years; yet, I believed others can be right bearing arms.

At a summer camp for adults associated with Charismatic "Home Churches" it was asked how many were against bearing arms, that is, if they were radical pacifists?  There were about 1/3 of them.  1/3 believed in just war and fighting with guns to keep free.  The ones in the middle were sympathizers with one side or another.

[jabcat]

I like your post James.  Not by you, but I believe some mis-use or simply with good intentions, don't understand the issue.  When things were about to "turn", and the disciples were about to be in a more dangerous situation of being "hunted and harassed", Jesus told them to bring a sword, provisions, and a purse for money.  I believe His statement of "living/dying by the sword" applies to being an aggressor, an abuser, wrongly accosting/taking advantage of others - not what would be considered justifiable (legal and moral) defensive or rescue actions.

For me, as long as I'm able and God provides the way, I'd believe it wrong for me to stand by and let my family suffer, including being assaulted, if I could even attempt to do anything about it.  Personally, I see as a goal to turn the other cheek when someone is accusing me, being unkind, etc. (not abusing back).  However, if it ever came to self (or family) defense of life and limb, I'd hope to be prepared and able to act.

One thing that I believe helps answer all this, I believe God said "don't murder", rather than "don't kill".  The Hebrew apparently says this;


Ex. 20:13
la
not

רְצָח *ִֿ
thrtzch
you-shall-murder

Blessings.

[eaglesway]

If you want gun control it is simple. Let the owner of a gun by whom a minor commits an act of violence share the penalty. That's freedom with accountability. Let the sellers of illegal firearms receive equal penalties for the commission of violent crimes. Let the owners of illegally modified weapons be subject to equal penalties for any crime committed with that weapon if they did not report it stolen and notify the proper authorities.

IMO our problem is not freedom, it is responsibility and common sense. I think assault weapons should be banned- there is no common sense reason to own one, no more than a civilian should own a bazooka or a hand-grenade. Weapons for reasonable self defense should be legal, but their should be stiff penalties for not securing them away from minors and mentally ill family members.

I laugh myself to tears at Christians who don't think they should be active in politics or vote or try to engage society with Christ-like idealism but believe they should be free to own an assault weapon. I think its a tragic, kind of insane, joke.

[ded2daworld]

Right EW. It's a matter of being "dead to the world" but alive to protecting God's property for him.
I guess I'm weird. I vote but take no other active role in society. I agree with your gun position
100% but for myself, I've never owned or even touched a gun (Been shot at though :doh:) and
don't think it wrong at all for other Christians to own guns as you suggest.
Hey, if only born agains owned guns wouldn't that be cool? :laughing7:

[sheila]

lol!  been shot at though...let me guess..out in the door to door work with jw'S...he..I had a dog

  'sikked' on me..bit me too!

[lomarah]

LOL ded I just have to let you know that every time I'm reading something and my daughter sees your avatar she gets really excited and is convinced I'm "texting" Charlie Brown hahahahahaha!!!

[ded2daworld]

I AM Charlie brown, just all grown up and changed my name to avoid the papparazzi :thumbsup:

[eaglesway]

Right EW. It's a matter of being "dead to the world" but alive to protecting God's property for him.
I guess I'm weird. I vote but take no other active role in society. I agree with your gun position
100% but for myself, I've never owned or even touched a gun (Been shot at though :doh:) and
don't think it wrong at all for other Christians to own guns as you suggest.
Hey, if only born agains owned guns wouldn't that be cool? :laughing7:

I have never owned a gun either. I don't think real born again's as in "The wind blows where it wills and you hear the sound of it but you don't know where it is going or from whence it comes, so it is with everyone who is born of the spirit" rely on guns to much. :o)
But if they did they would probably use them for shooting rats and poisonous snakes and pedophiles and such.

[Molly]

 :sigh:

Let's review.  This is not a matter of opinion.  This is not a matter of --oh I am afraid of guns.  This is not a matter of what makes the media happy. This is not a matter of keep Diane Feinstein happy.

This is a matter of the highest law of the land we live in.



My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.--Hos 4:6



A Well Regulated Militia?

From and by: Ken kiger@northstate.net

Lost in the gun rights debate, much to the detriment of American freedom, is the fact that the Second Amendment is in fact an "AMENDMENT". No "Articles in Amendment" to the Constitution, more commonly referred to as the Bill of Rights, stand alone and each can only be properly understood with reference to what it is that each Article in Amendment amended in the body of the original Constitution. It should not be new knowledge to any American the Constitution was first submitted to Congress on September 17, 1787 WITHOUT ANY AMENDMENTS. After much debate, it was determined that the States would not adopt the Constitution as originally submitted until "further declamatory and restrictive clauses should be added" "in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its (the Constitutions) powers". (This quote is from the Preamble to the Amendments, which was adopted along with the Amendments but is mysteriously missing from nearly all modern copies.) The first ten Amendments were not ratified and added to the Constitution until December 15, 1791.

In this Light:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." What provisions of the original Constitution is it that the Second Amendment is designed to "amend"?

THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS AMENDING THE PROVISIONS IN THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION APPLYING TO THE "MILITIA". The States were not satisfied with the powers granted to the "militia" as defined in the original Constitution and required an amendment to "prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers. "(Again quoting from the Preamble to the Amendments.)

What was it about the original Constitutional provisions concerning the "Militia" that was so offensive to the States?

First understand that the word "militia" was used with more than one meaning at the time of the penning of the Constitution. One popular definition used then was one often quoted today, that the "Militia" was every able bodied man owning a gun. As true as this definition is, it only confuses the meaning of the word "militia" as used in the original Constitution that required the Second Amendment to correct. The only definition of "Militia" that had any meaning to the States demanding Amendments is the definition used in the original Constitution. What offended the States then should offend "People" today:

"Militia" in the original Constitution as amended by the Second Amendment is first found in Article 1, Section 8, clause 15, where Congress is granted the power:

"To provide for the calling forth the MILITIA to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrection and repel Invasions." Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 further empowers Congress:

"To provide for the organizing, arming, and disciplining, the MILITIA, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;" Any "patriot" out there still want to be called a member of the "MILITIA" as defined by the original Constitution?

Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1 empowers: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the MILITIA of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;" The only way the States would accept the "MILITIA" as defined in the original Constitution was that the Federal "MILITIA" be "WELL REGULATED". The States realized that "THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE" required that the "MILITIA" as originally created in the Constitution be "WELL REGULATED" by a "restrictive clause." How did the States decide to insure that the Constitutional "MILITIA" be "WELL REGULATED"? By demanding that "restrictive clause two" better known as the "Second Amendment" be added to the original Constitution providing:

"THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."   The States knew that "PEOPLE" with "ARMS" would "WELL REGULATE" the Federal "MILITIA"!

Now read for the first time with the full brightness of the Light of truth:

"A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."

For those still overcome by propaganda:

The Second Amendment declares by implication that if the "MILITIA" is not "WELL REGULATED" by "PEOPLE" keeping and bearing arms, the "MILITIA" becomes a threat to the "SECURITY OF A FREE STATE."

The "MILITIA" has no "RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS" in the Second Amendment, rather it is only "THE RIGHT OF THE ""PEOPLE"" TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS (that) SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."

http://www.godseesyou.com/2nd_well_regulated_militia.html

[dajomaco]

As a Canadian the American Constitution is something I have no say in.
None the less the profiteers of the military and gun  cultures irritate
irritates my sensitive constitution .     

[Molly]

Genocides instituted by governments on their own people irritates my sensitive constitution.

[Lazarus Short]

This may be a wee bit off-topic, but the discussion brought it up from my memory.

One evening, after I had quit the SDA church, I was invited to some doings at the local church where my brother-in-law attended.  The pastor who was speaking there was a Cuban ex-pat, who told some of us who were conversing with him outside after the formal meeting, that he was one of those Castroite soldiers who was waiting on the shore of the Bay of Pigs as the invaders came to shore.  That just amazed me - back in the day, I would have thought of him as the enemy, a faceless Commie soldier (anybody remember "Kill a Commie for Christ"?) who was hostile to Our Cause, and now here we were talking together, and he was my Christian brother.