'Turn the Other Cheek' Beck Decries Potential Violence in Bundy Standoff

[Christian Liberty]

Great response on Beck's facebook:

Yeah and I read your column what if in the revolutionary war we would have just said Let God take care of it. Thats why he gave us hands, and voices and above all freedom so that we being instruments could put an end to tyranny and we did. God help us if we would have listened to someone like you back then. America there would be no America. It took men with bravery who were willing to fight for what they believed in and if you read your bible Glenn God gives us permission to do so and I will find that verse for you. I feel the same way about these officers as I did the officers that wouldn't allow the WW2 veterans in because they were doing their jobs they are cowards and are not americans. Glen I will have to think twice before tuning in to you again.

I don't think the cops that stupidly complied with the orders to prevent the WWII veterans from worshipping America at their stupid memorial is anywhere near comparable to this.

The commentator is a military-worshipping idiot. I'm getting sick of 'em. WWII was evil just like almost every other war.

God wills it!

I believe God wills everything that happens. He is the sovereign Lord of the Universe, and he always gets his way. That's the metaphysical issue. But we rightly do not deal with metaphysics when we make decisions.

That doesn't make God wrong.

True, but it might mean that Glenn Beck doesn't know what he's trying to say

 

[Christian Liberty]

I'm glad that Jesus voluntarily submitted to the tyrants when they murdered him.

I know you aren't in any way shape or form "pro-state" but I've always found it really, really annoying when people have tried to use Jesus Christ as an argument for why tyrants should be obeyed. Basically any other argument... the apostles, Romans 13, 1 Peter 2... ANY other argument would be better than that one. But, Jesus pretty obviously came to earth for a specific reason, so trying to draw absolute moral principles from his death seems like a stretch to me. HUGE stretch.

 

[erowe1]

I know you aren't in any way shape or form "pro-state" but I've always found it really, really annoying when people have tried to use Jesus Christ as an argument for why tyrants should be obeyed. Basically any other argument... the apostles, Romans 13, 1 Peter 2... ANY other argument would be better than that one. But, Jesus pretty obviously came to earth for a specific reason, so trying to draw absolute moral principles from his death seems like a stretch to me. HUGE stretch.

You don't think we should draw moral principles from his death?

He didn't present it as a pattern to follow? It wasn't an action that exemplified his own teachings and commands to his disciples?

The way Jesus conquered Satan (which I take to be practically synonymous with the state) is the same way he wants us to. When he rides victorious over the Beast in a robe drenched in blood, that blood will be his, not theirs. And on the way toward that victory, his saints will also overcome by the same blood of the lamb, and they will do this by not loving their lives even unto death.

When the state prods us towards its wishes, it can only increase the strength of its prodding up to the point of taking our physical lives. That is its limit. For believers in Jesus that's nothing. And when we show the state that we see it as nothing, the state becomes absolutely powerless over us. Do I think this is one important lesson to draw from the cross? Absolutely. And I am thoroughly convinced that it's biblical. In fact, when statist Christians recognize it, they will be awakened something that is very close to the center of the Christian faith.

 

[William Tell]

'Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God' Ben Franklin

Never seen that one, I have seen: "Resistence to Tyrants is Obedience to God." ~Thomas Jefferson.

But my fovorite founding father quote is: "Fully 90% of the historical quotes on the internet are false, or misattributed" ~ George Washington

 

[erowe1]

Whether it was Ben Franklin or Thomas Jefferson, neither of them had much interest in being biblical. This is not to say that Glenn Beck does.

 

[Christian Liberty]

You don't think we should draw moral principles from his death?

He didn't present it as a pattern to follow? It wasn't an action that exemplified his own teachings and commands to his disciples?

The way Jesus conquered Satan (which I take to be practically synonymous with the state) is the same way he wants us to. When he rides victorious over the Beast in a robe drenched in blood, that blood will be his, not theirs. And on the way toward that victory, his saints will also overcome by the same blood of the lamb, and they will do this by not loving their lives even unto death.

Are you saying that self-defense against the state is always and in every case immoral? If that's the case I disagree with you. And I think using Jesus (who had a greater purpose in laying down his life than just an ethical principle) as an argument for doing so is invalid. You can't separate Jesus' decision to allow himself to be killed from the reason why he came into the world.

 

[William Tell]

Whether it was Ben Franklin or Thomas Jefferson, neither of them had much interest in being biblical. This is not to say that Glenn Beck does.

Yeah, but Ehud was Biblical.

 

[erowe1]

Are you saying that self-defense against the state is always and in every case immoral?

No. I can't say that. But I would say that there is positive benefit and glory in following Christ's example in doing the opposite, which Christians must see. The state will lose its war against Christ not by Christians killing its agents, but by its agents killing Christians.

 

[erowe1]

Yeah, but Ehud was Biblical.

Ehud was biblical in the sense of being a character in the Bible. That's not what I was talking about.

 

[Pericles]

I'm glad that Jesus voluntarily submitted to the tyrants when they murdered him.

I'm a Christian, but I'm not Jesus.

 

[erowe1]

I'm a Christian, but I'm not Jesus.

Me neither. But when my inclinations differ from his, mine are wrong.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Yeah, but Ehud was Biblical.

I once used this as a response to my dad when he claimed that he couldn't see any justification for violent resistance to government in the Bible. I'm not sure if that OT passage directly relates to any modern situation, but it should at least be debated. For some reason that passage is just never mentioned yet Romans 13 is always mentioned.

No. I can't say that. But I would say that there is positive benefit and glory in following Christ's example in doing the opposite, which Christians must see. The state will lose its war against Christ not by Christians killing its agents, but by its agents killing Christians.

I think this is way more situational than you are making it out to be.

Ehud was biblical in the sense of being a character in the Bible. That's not what I was talking about.

Well, he was a judge that was seemingly blessed by God.

 

[pcosmar]

I'm a Christian, but I'm not Jesus.

If it be possible, as much as lies in you, live peaceably with all men.

I do try,, and am successful most of the time.
Peace is not possible with some men.

 

[erowe1]

Well, he was a judge that was seemingly blessed by God.

So was Jephthah.

 

[Pericles]

If it be possible, as much as lies in you, live peaceably with all men.

I do try,, and am successful most of the time.
Peace is not possible with some men.

Especially money changers in the Temple

 

[tod evans]

I've gotta post this here too;

 

[Christian Liberty]

So was Jephthah.

True. But is killing a murderous king morally comparable with murdering one's non-criminal daughter?

Put another way, did Moses "murder" the Egyptian taskmaster? Or was his action justified? I think it was justified.

 

[Christian Liberty]

To be clear, I'm not actually sure how I'd answer this. But I do think in most Christian circles these Old Testament passages are basically ignored while Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 get beaten to death, and I don't think that's right. These passages should be debated and they should be preached, and we should be using the WHOLE Bible to try to come up with a viewpoint of how people should react to statism, not just the New Testament and certainly not just Romans chapter 13.

 

[AuH20]

To be clear, I'm not actually sure how I'd answer this. But I do think in most Christian circles these Old Testament passages are basically ignored while Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 get beaten to death, and I don't think that's right. These passages should be debated and they should be preached, and we should be using the WHOLE Bible to try to come up with a viewpoint of how people should react to statism, not just the New Testament and certainly not just Romans chapter 13.

While in parochial school, ignoring the OT always bugged me something awful.

 

[erowe1]

True. But is killing a murderous king morally comparable with murdering one's non-criminal daughter?

No. But neither one provides a moral norm for us.