Results 1 - 8 of 8
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Pledge, "under God", WWJD? | Bible general Archive 2 | New Creature | 105984 | ||
If you want Scriptural support for civil disobedience, I will give you two examples. One from the Old Testament and another from the New Testament. Ex 1:15 And the king of Egypt spake to the Hebrew midwives, of which the name of the one was Shiphrah, and the name of the other Puah: Ex 1:16 And he said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill him: but if it be a daughter, then she shall live. Ex 1:17 But the midwives feared God, and DID NOT AS THE KING OF EGYPT COMMANDED THEM, but saved the men children alive. (Capitalization mine for emphasis) In Acts 4, Peter and John were commanded not to speak or teach in the name of Jesus. Then in Acts 5, we see the Apostles disregarding the previous orders, and they are found again teaching in Jesus name. The Apostles rule was; "We must obey God rather than men!" Acts 5:29. We are citizens of Heaven and as Seward whom I quoted in my previous reply said: "There is a higher law than the Constitution" We owe first allegiance to God. We are in this world, but not of this world. We currently are sojourning on enemy territory. Finally civil law is instituted mainly for the ungodly, not the righteous man, in Christ. 1 Tim. 1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, If you want Scriptural support for civil disobedience, I will give you two examples. One from the Old Testament and another from the New Testament. Ex 1:15 And the king of Egypt spake to the Hebrew midwives, of which the name of the one was Shiphrah, and the name of the other Puah: Ex 1:16 And he said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill him: but if it be a daughter, then she shall live. Ex 1:17 But the midwives feared God, and DID NOT AS THE KING OF EGYPT COMMANDED THEM, but saved the men children alive. (Capitalization mine for emphasis) In Acts 4, Peter and John were commanded not to speak or teach in the name of Jesus. Then in Acts 5, we see that the Apostles disregarding the previous orders, and they are found again teaching in Jesus name. The Apostles rule was; "We must obey God rather than men!" Acts 5:29. We are citizens of Heaven and as Seward whom I quoted in my previous reply said: "There is a higher law than the Constitution" We owe first allegiance to God. We are in this world, but not of this world. We currently are sojourning on enemy territory. Finally civil law is instituted mainly for the ungodly, not the righteous man, in Christ. 1 Tim. 1:8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; 1 Tim. 1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 1 Tim. 1:10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; If you want other Biblical examples of civil disobedience I would be glad to provide you with them. Shalom New Creature |
||||||
2 | Pledge, "under God", WWJD? | Bible general Archive 2 | Parable | 105994 | ||
The question of civil disobedience as an option is not the issue. Rather, it is the question of whether or not "under god" should be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance and if Christians should obey if the Supreme Court rules it to be unconstitutional. According to Kalos, post #105993: "The applicable biblical principle seems to be that civil disobedience is only acceptable, and perhaps even required, when it is to protect innocent human life." I submit that those who seek to remove "under God" from the Pledge may be innocent in need of protection, misguided as they may be. Of course, it is debateable if this is a life or death issue, but surely the defense of the constitution often has cost people their lives. Parable |
||||||
3 | Pledge, "under God", WWJD? | Bible general Archive 2 | Morant61 | 106005 | ||
Greetings Parable! May I throw a monkey wrench into your question? The Supreme Court has no authority to 'make' law. So, even if they rule that 'under God' in the pledge is unconstitutional, I would not be violating any law by saying it anyway. It would be a different story if congress would pass a law saying that one could not say 'under God' in the pledge. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
4 | Pledge, "under God", WWJD? | Bible general Archive 2 | Parable | 106026 | ||
Interesting approach. You seem to suggest that doing what may be deemed unconstitional is ok because there is no law expressly forbidding it. The problem with this idea is the constition is the highest law of the land, higher than any legislation Congress may pass. Indeed, the constitution is the standard by which all congressional acts are measured. More importantly, in our spiritual lives, isn't this line of thinking how we often delude ourselves into justifying what we want instead of what is right? |
||||||
5 | Pledge, "under God", WWJD? | Bible general Archive 2 | Morant61 | 106027 | ||
Greetings Parable! You misunderstand my point my friend! My point is that the Supreme Court has no power to MAKE law. They can only interpret law. If they rule that a particular law is unconsitutional, then congress must go back and either fix it or let it slide, but the Supreme Court cannot pass any law at all. Secondly, I am not the government. So, while the Supreme Court may find that it is unconstitional for the government to include the phrase 'under God' in the pledge, there is absolutely nothing in the constitution which would forbid me, as a private citizen, from saying it anyway. One cannot violate a law which does not exist. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6 | Pledge, "under God", WWJD? | Bible general Archive 2 | Parable | 106028 | ||
Actually, I agree with your point. Indeed, in my first post, I suggested that the Pledge is not law, but rather a practice imposed by the force of tradition. The problem is that this practice is imposed on everyone at public schools, which are funded by tax dollars and this where the conflict arises. Sure, you can make the Pledge part of your day at a private school, but tax dollars carry with them the obligations to uphold the constitution. | ||||||
7 | Pledge, "under God", WWJD? | Bible general Archive 2 | Morant61 | 106030 | ||
Greetings Parable! There is quite a bit of debate about whether or not the pledge is constitutional. I happen to believe it is constitutional since the 'seperation' clause is not actually in the constitution. But, even if it is true that a law making 'under God' part of the pledge is unconsitutional, there is nothing in the constitution which would prohibit me from saying it, even in a public school. I am not a 'government', nor a law passed by the government, so I cannot violate the constitution by saying something religious, even in the public setting. The real debate should be whether or not the current understanding of the constitution is correct. The founders only included two provision about religion in the consititution. The state cannot establish a state religion, nor can it prohibit the free exercise of religion. The state has done plenty of the second by passing laws which limit my ability to worship when and where I please. As far as the first is concerned, this has been interpreted to mean that the state cannot even allow the mention of religion or God in a public or governmental setting. Yet, if this is what the founders intended, why is God mentioned in the preamble to the consititution? Why does congress open with prayer, including the first congress? Clearly, the founding fathers did not intend for the constitution to be interpreted in the manner it has been interpreted. They were concerned about the government coming in and saying that everyone had to be Church of England, or such. They were not concerned that God might actually be mentioned in public. So, if I as a private individual, say 'under God' even in a public school, which part of the constitution am I violating? ;-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
8 | Pledge, "under God", WWJD? | Bible general Archive 2 | New Creature | 106071 | ||
Tim; While the Constitution prohibits the government from establishing a state religion, the state already has established a national religion, against the establishment clause of the First Amendment. The religion which the government has established, supports and gives tax exempt status to, is the Religion of Secular Humanism, which is a non-theistic religion. If anyone doubts that Humanism is a religion, reading the "Humanist Manifesto's will remove any doubt. Therefore the State is definetly in violation of the "establishment clause" Also consider the following: "since the theory of evolution is based on many inferences that cannot be “proven” beyond a doubt, evolution then is really a doctrine of faith, religious faith" (state of Arkansas Act 590 of 1981 - Balanced Treatment of Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act - Section 6) "Religious evolutionary atheistic humanism does not have Sunday schools as we know them. It has effective Monday through Friday schools which are change agents for humanism. It passes no collection plates, for every citizen pays for it through government taxation." (unknown) "John Dunphy, wrote in the Humanist magazine: “I am convinced that the battle for humankinds future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as proselytizers of a new faith. They will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new. The rotting corpse of Christianity, and the new faith of humanism.” God Bless you Tim New Creature |
||||||