Response to CLR 1. I have to say I am a white male and I don't LOVE guns. Some men do and it is idolatry. I don't think this is limited to whites tho. I do enjoy guns. Great instrument for protection (not sure why my family needs to be protected from me, I'm teaching my kids how to properly handle a firearm). It's also a great stress reliever. Some people like to swing at golf balls. I like to bust clays in the air.
2. Remember there is only one race - the human one. I can't stand segregation and as long as we are separate "races" what are we to expect?
3. When a black policeman kills a black man or a white man it doesn't make news. Why?
seaton, my post was not intended to be accompanied with "aggro". (ironic that you thought it was given that the pro paisley party have referred to those who hold my view as "brats of the devil") you quoted romans 13. i agree the OFFICE of civil magistrate is appointed by God, and is to be submitted to except where same requires sin. that chapter sets out the purpose of the civil magistrate, to be a terror to evil works, as the minister of God executing wrath upon the evil doer. i support the God ordained order through civil government. i am not a supporter of anarchy. however, when the holder of the God ordained office fails to be a terror to evil works, and is silent on immoral legislation which impinges on christian liberty, absent from westminster during a crucial vote, jointly governing with notorious evildoers, and also at the same time occupying a pulpit and ministering in the word, i cannot be silent and am compelled to speak out. i have no desire to overthrow the elected government of this land, and i submit myself to it, in as far as i can without sin. however, i do believe that christians should hold dr paisley and the dup to account for their conduct in government. article
when can we expect a statement from the Rev. Dr. Paisley (in his capacity as moderator of one of the largest christian churches in N.I.)on the SORs? I believe he previously declined to do so as the matter was before the courts (his office defending them there.)
this business of "poitics being politics and church being church" would not have stopped the "old" Ian Paisley. as i recall he didn't let the fact he was in the european parliament stop him from denouncing the pope as the antichrist. what changed when he met sean brady the rc primate of all ireland? on that occasion he wouldn't mix religion and politics.
can we expect The Rev. Dr. Paisley and his party to now bring forward legislation seeking the repeal or amendment of the said SORs?
the Lord be with you too, mr or miss or mrs seaton
i have long observed the high opinion of the rev. dr among the Lord's people as these boards have long witnessed.
i have also long held unease about the said gentleman. despite now being a covenanter, my family were very involved in the dup in the 1970s and 1980s.
i never felt it seemly for an ambassador of Christ to lead men to the top of the mountain to wave their gun licenses, or to set up a paramilitary "third force".
i am deeply troubled about where both the fpc and the province find themselves. it may be that you are simply not old enough to appreciate that Rev Dr P. agitated and brought the collapse of many attempts at peace, and now what was previously unacceptable becomes acceptable(the only difference now being he is in charge).
as to the fpc, she exercises discipline in some dubious circumstances, yet refuses to deal with this matter in a presbyterian way.
if what paisley and others was doing was biblical he had nothing to fear. but the fpc couldn't even bear to examine his conduct in light of scripture.
now the JR of the SORs is over, i wont be holding my breath for paisley to either condemn or try to repeal them.
... and heres the oath pledge of office, just to remind you!
to serve all the people of Northern Ireland equally, and to act in accordance with the general obligations on government to PROMOTE EQUALITY and prevent discrimination;
as to arminian thinking, its a bit rich you calling me that, when you are the one who is in effect saying it is beyond the providence of God for one standing on a clear and transparent christian ticket to be elected.
maybe you want to introduce your *reality* to the church to. maybe a little bit of dance, drama, philosophy, street theatre, cinema, whatever .. as that what is wanted *TODAY*..
alas for evangelical ulster if what you say represents its thinking. what you are promoting is in effect situational ethics. give them what they want, tailor your manifesto to what is popular, hide any unpopular biblical belief in case people are offended by the biblical position on these things.
either paisley did something wrong - in which case he should have been disciplined (WCF XXX)
or else he did nothing wrong - and he should still be allowed to stand again for further election as moderator (ignoring the section in the wcf about not being civil magistrate and minister )
i can see that discipline might have been painful, but the course taken was choosing unity over truth.
the conduct of the men involved in public office has not fallen under the spotlight of scripture. if it had, then the church could have either declared the conduct in office as above board, or else sinful.
"But question; - Should Christians try to get into public office and try, by grace, to make a witness statement, at that level?
If you consider they should, then the ticket I described above would null and void your attempt *today* before it even begun."
so be it.
what you are suggesting is to devise your manifesto according to what is popular and expedient, so as to get elected in the first place. better not to get elected than to compromise on one's principles. it is God's view that matters, not man's. the fact that paisley professes Christ has made (so far) zero impact in terms of the immoral laws that affect us. what is the point of voting a christian into power if they won't deliver on their christian convictions?
i suggest you read some of the online commentaries or listen to sermons online about romans 13. you will find the attempt to dodge the principle of the God appointed role of the magistrate to be novel and unorthodox.
alan, as to civil partnerships, http://www.christian.org.uk/pressreleases/2005/december_21_2005.htm
irrespective of whether you hold to the psoition that paisley and poots are bound to observe the sinful law, i don't see them bringing forward legislation seeking the repeal or amendment of the Sexual Orientation Regulations!
"THe fact of the matter is the Free P`s, including Dr Paisley are seeking to change the SOR`s law by way of fundng the Christian Institutes legal case the result of which is due to be heard today. The Department of Culture funding of Belfast Gay Pride was also rubber stamped by Westminster Labour party direct Rule minsters prior to devolution, to try to reject it now would be a waste of tax payers money as it is clearly illegal to do so"
paisley sits as head of the office who DEFENDED the Sexual Orientation Regulations AGAINST the case brought by his church and the christian institute.
poots sits as minister over the department which this year funded the gay march.
since these two came to office they have refused to criticise or publicly oppose this waste of tax payers money.
Matthew 12:30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.
paisley and the dup's silence on these matters, and hiding behind speaking out " because its the law already" speaks volumes for them.
as you say, we will see more as this administration continues. it has not started well and it will not end well, unless the Lord intervenes.
since paisley became first minister, can you please direct me to a single instance where he has PUBLICLY spoken out against the blasphemous conduct at the gay pride march? or PUBLICLY spoken out about the sexual orientation regulations?
civil government is not neutral. as a christian he is subject to God. daniel obeyed God even when the law said he should not. ian paisley simply keeps silent or else says i can't comment or his party says we are bound to promote "equality" by higher laws.
as to sitting with terrorists - the primary function of civil governemnt is to punish evil doers. how can paisley do this when he forms a government with notorious evil doers?
as to the fpc - they have chosen unity at the expense of truth.
it may have been painful for them to examine the conduct of paisley, poots and mccrea in light of scripture, but by choosing to spare paisley's reputation by not bringing these things to the clear light of scripture (never mind disciplining in accordance with the wcf) they have damaged the cause of Christ in the province.
paisley's conduct at the minute is more akin to pontius pilate (foolishly assuming you can be neutral iexercising power or in failing to exercise it) than to daniel.