briar patch

[JohnL]

It would be interesting to see a “hierarchy” of which Bible verses we have to take seriously versus ones we can basically ignore.

Yep it would be a good project. We could probably start with the metaphors and similes. They’re used to make a comparison instead of making a mandate. Descriptions of people and places probably would be next. But then if this project ever appeared how would it stop short of telling everybody what they have to do instead of what God calls the individual to do?

"We" would have to first agree on some rather basic things, which you as a Freewill Baptist and myself as a Mennonite are going to be unable to do. For example, I think the Sermon on the Mount teaches that as Christians, we can't kill people, even in justified self defence; whereas Freewill Baptists interpret the Sermon on the Mount very differently.

It depends on the Free Willer. Everyone’s a little different because after it’s said and done we believe in Free Will. So the assumption that a Free Willer doesn’t believe in avoiding killing others is a generalization. Some believe in non-violence. Others have gone to war. It’s not a pat unified theology on that particular belief. The main point is that 1. We believe and follow Jesus. 2. Trust the Bible’s teachings as the authentic word of God. 3. Do our best to follow God’s calling and teachings in our lives. That’s it. From what I’m reading here I see Anabaptists are pretty near to the same priorities. I could be wrong about that observation but I’m leaning more to that I’m right about it.

[JohnH]

It depends on the Free Willer. Everyone’s a little different because after it’s said and done we believe in Free Will. So the assumption that a Free Willer doesn’t believe in avoiding killing others is a generalization. Some believe in non-violence. Others have gone to war. It’s not a pat unified theology on that particular belief. The main point is that 1. We believe and follow Jesus. 2. Trust the Bible’s teachings as the authentic word of God. 3. Do our best to follow God’s calling and teachings in our lives. That’s it. From what I’m reading here I see Anabaptists are pretty near to the same priorities. I could be wrong about that observation but I’m leaning more to that I’m right about it.

As a general rule, Freewill Baptists do not hold to nonresistance nor pacifism and do not avoid military service. They do not discipline church members who would carry firearms for self defence.

It is deceptive and wrong to claim “Free Willers” have anything in common with Anabaptists when it comes to nonresistance or pacifism.

Of course, it should be Plain to see that most people, Catholic, Baptist, atheist, or otherwise, want to Maximize not killing people.

[JohnL]

It depends on the Free Willer. Everyone’s a little different because after it’s said and done we believe in Free Will. So the assumption that a Free Willer doesn’t believe in avoiding killing others is a generalization. Some believe in non-violence. Others have gone to war. It’s not a pat unified theology on that particular belief. The main point is that 1. We believe and follow Jesus. 2. Trust the Bible’s teachings as the authentic word of God. 3. Do our best to follow God’s calling and teachings in our lives. That’s it. From what I’m reading here I see Anabaptists are pretty near to the same priorities. I could be wrong about that observation but I’m leaning more to that I’m right about it.

As a general rule, Freewill Baptists do not hold to nonresistance nor pacifism and do not avoid military service. They do not discipline church members who would carry firearms for self defence.

I see you’re going to die sticking to your assumption about your general rule. As a Free Willer I can tell you it’s flat out wrong to make that assumption about us. I’m not going to get into a verbal punching fight with you about it. I’m just letting you know it’s wrong.

[JohnH]

It depends on the Free Willer. Everyone’s a little different because after it’s said and done we believe in Free Will. So the assumption that a Free Willer doesn’t believe in avoiding killing others is a generalization. Some believe in non-violence. Others have gone to war. It’s not a pat unified theology on that particular belief. The main point is that 1. We believe and follow Jesus. 2. Trust the Bible’s teachings as the authentic word of God. 3. Do our best to follow God’s calling and teachings in our lives. That’s it. From what I’m reading here I see Anabaptists are pretty near to the same priorities. I could be wrong about that observation but I’m leaning more to that I’m right about it.

As a general rule, Freewill Baptists do not hold to nonresistance nor pacifism and do not avoid military service. They do not discipline church members who would carry firearms for self defence.

I see you’re going to die sticking to your assumption about your general rule. As a Free Willer I can tell you it’s flat out wrong to make that assumption about us. I’m not going to get into a verbal punching fight with you about it. I’m just letting you know it’s wrong.

Please point me to any source showing nonresistance existing in free will circles - specifically, have they ever disciplined a church member for joining the military?

I know a girl who taught Sunday school to children at a free will Baptist church in Oklahoma. She used CLP books which taught nonresistance. She was removed from that position due to that.

[JohnL]

As a general rule, Freewill Baptists do not hold to nonresistance nor pacifism and do not avoid military service. They do not discipline church members who would carry firearms for self defence.

I see you’re going to die sticking to your assumption about your general rule. As a Free Willer I can tell you it’s flat out wrong to make that assumption about us. I’m not going to get into a verbal punching fight with you about it. I’m just letting you know it’s wrong.

Please point me to any source showing nonresistance existing in free will circles - specifically, have they ever disciplined a church member for joining the military?

I know a girl who taught Sunday school to children at a free will Baptist church in Oklahoma. She used CLP books which taught nonresistance. She was removed from that position due to that.

One girl. From a single situation. That kind of generalization doesn’t cut it. I’m telling you again and for the last time. Free Will churches are independent. Each one will do what it feels called to do. Generalized assumptions can’t be applied to all the FW churches as though they’re a single body. That’s like saying all Mennonites think they’re the one true church just because of what a Holdeman might say. I’m done telling you because I’ve told you several times before. If you insist on dying with your assumptions on your lips that’s all on you.

[JohnH]

And I’m telling you again that Freewill Baptist churches don’t excommunicate members for joining the military.

Feel free to show me an example to the contrary.

[Bootstrap]

Not justifying it, but you aren't thinking about global players positioning these things like chess pieces.

What isn't a threat now, can become a threat later.

Apparently, you think you can see some way that this conflict helps the average American. Can you be more specific?

I am not at all convinced that this is a brilliant move in a game of three dimensional chess. I do think quite a bit about strategy, so if you have some specific strategic considerations to share, please do.

I’ve tried to explain this to you before and you don’t seem to grasp it. This is about Russia and Chinese investments in what America views as its territory.
I think you’re also conflating what I’m saying. I never said it was actually going to improve the lives of average Americans. I explained to you one possibility for why it might be happening.

Have you noticed how much of the energy in some of your posts goes into saying or implying negative things about me compared to the time and effort you put into actually saying something? I would much rather have a discussion about the topic than a snip-fest. I don't think that energy is well spent. It's becoming rather a habit.

I do not think that the United States should be able to tell independent countries who they are allowed to do business with. Do you? And even there, it's striking that the President is primarily concerned with major corporations like Exxon, acting as though things taken from Exxon are the same as things taken from the United States and the American people.

These decisions are being made behind closed doors. I wonder what Exxon is giving in return. I think Venezuela has every right to sell oil on the world market. I don't think this kind of military brinkmanship will make the United States more influential in the long run, it signals that we really do not respect the sovereignty of other countries, we believe might makes right, and we only care about money and power.

We are also telling our former allies that we do not believe in allies, we just believe in what's in it for us and short term deals.

Venezuela is not the first country the United States threatened this year. Greenland, Panama, Canada, Venezuela, Nigeria ... it's a new hobby. And none of it is about the problems that most need fixing here at home.

[Soloist]

Have you noticed how much of the energy in some of your posts goes into saying or implying negative things about me compared to the time and effort you put into actually saying something? I would much rather have a discussion about the topic than a snip-fest. I don't think that energy is well spent. It's becoming rather a habit.

I don't feel like I'm spending any energy doing so. I think you are making assumptions.

I do not think that the United States should be able to tell independent countries who they are allowed to do business with. Do you? And even there, it's striking that the President is primarily concerned with major corporations like Exxon, acting as though things taken from Exxon are the same as things taken from the United States and the American people.

so you object to sanctions then? same basic logic. All I've done is stated one possible reason. If you don't like it thats fine, I don't either but I didn't like it when we did it quietly either.

These decisions are being made behind closed doors. I wonder what Exxon is giving in return. I think Venezuela has every right to sell oil on the world market. I don't think this kind of military brinkmanship will make the United States more influential in the long run, it signals that we really do not respect the sovereignty of other countries, we believe might makes right, and we only care about money and power.

It was always done behind closed doors, we just didn't tell the media too before.

We are also telling our former allies that we do not believe in allies, we just believe in what's in it for us and short term deals.

Venezuela is not the first country the United States threatened this year. Greenland, Panama, Canada, Venezuela, Nigeria ... it's a new hobby. And none of it is about the problems that most need fixing here at home.

Its not a new hobby. Its just a new hobby to tell the media.

I think if you are thinking I'm defending this, you have missed everything I've been saying entirely.

[Bootstrap]

Have you noticed how much of the energy in some of your posts goes into saying or implying negative things about me compared to the time and effort you put into actually saying something? I would much rather have a discussion about the topic than a snip-fest. I don't think that energy is well spent. It's becoming rather a habit.

I don't feel like I'm spending any energy doing so. I think you are making assumptions.

I don't know how much energy you put into writing this part of your posts, I imagine not much. I think this is just a habit you have fallen into. But try reading these posts - what percent of the post actually makes a statement about the subject? What percent is going into venting negative emotion? Is that really what you want your posts to do?

And that energy makes it much, much harder to have a conversation about the actual subject. It's almost like a filibuster.

I would rather have a discussion than an argument. Especially when it's not even clear what the argument is about.

[Bootstrap]

I do not think that the United States should be able to tell independent countries who they are allowed to do business with. Do you? And even there, it's striking that the President is primarily concerned with major corporations like Exxon, acting as though things taken from Exxon are the same as things taken from the United States and the American people.

so you object to sanctions then? same basic logic. All I've done is stated one possible reason. If you don't like it thats fine, I don't either but I didn't like it when we did it quietly either.

I think there's a significant difference between:

1. Organizing a boycott of Russian oil when Russia is using that money to invade Ukraine, and
2. Claiming the general right to force countries "in our sphere" to let us decide who their leader is and who they are allow3ed to do business with.

These decisions are being made behind closed doors. I wonder what Exxon is giving in return. I think Venezuela has every right to sell oil on the world market. I don't think this kind of military brinkmanship will make the United States more influential in the long run, it signals that we really do not respect the sovereignty of other countries, we believe might makes right, and we only care about money and power.

It was always done behind closed doors, we just didn't tell the media too before.

We are also telling our former allies that we do not believe in allies, we just believe in what's in it for us and short term deals.

Venezuela is not the first country the United States threatened this year. Greenland, Panama, Canada, Venezuela, Nigeria ... it's a new hobby. And none of it is about the problems that most need fixing here at home.

Its not a new hobby. Its just a new hobby to tell the media.

I think if you are thinking I'm defending this, you have missed everything I've been saying entirely.

I think it's better for you to simply say, plainly, what you think of this, without imagining what I might or might not be thinking you think. Don't make me guess. Don't wonder what I would guess. Let me handle what I think, what you think is currently underrepresented in this conversation, and I can't cover for you there.

When this kind of thing was done behind closed doors, and it was discovered, that has often been a time for outrage, sometimes that has led to cleaning things up. There were investigations into wrongdoing.

Now, it feels like the transgression is celebrated - "look what we can get away with!" It's televised and promoted on social media. It becomes national policy, who we are, what we stand for. And I do think that makes it worse.

"Hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue". If someone caught in the act of adultery has to resign his post in shame, there is still a public sense that adultery is wrong. If someone caught in the act of adultery gets to brag about what he gets away with, it makes it cool, a sign of power, a sign of being the kind of person who can do whatever he wants.