However I think that non-religious, atheists etc. should do their best to oppose the religious in their own nation. So I hope that the non-believers/atheists of Australia will be able to do something about religious fanatics in their nation.
Unfortunately the Government has its hands tied by "Political correctness" which disenables the government from doing anything about the Islamic Fanatics whose goal is to install Sharia Law here
Also, you should be pleased that "Political correctness" is used to put the rights of minority groups (i.e. muslims, gays, etc.) above the riights of the Christian majority.
"Political correctness" is quickly turning our nation into minority rule!
Democracy is dying
How about quoting reputable historians, that at least would be a beginning, eh?
By reputable historians you must mean anti-christian ahistorians who have an agenda of maligning Christianity, like your sources
The quotes i supplied (in Links) were from the horses mouths, from the Nazis who made it abundantly clear that they were against and not for Christianity.
If you did not have such a hate filled anti-Christian agenda and actually made a genuine study of Nazi philosophy, you would know that Christianity was the next religion that the Nazis intended to exterminate after Judaism.
Nazis, by nature, are like you, atheists.
So, it is you, as an atheist, not i, who has closer links to Nazism, especially as you share their goal of eradicating Christianity.
Hey, if you had the sense to ask me, before shooting your keyboard off, i would have told you that, no Church denomination, nor any individual Christians, are perfect.
If you are going to debate like a scratched rercord, i shall just quote my previous responses
Btw you're a Christian, you're supposed to forgive and turn the other cheek, remember?
Of course, and when you repent from your all out attack on our faith, i will certainly forgive you.
Also, I still am offering myself (my cheeks) to your constant barrage of insults and false accusations
or are you like the WBC in that you preach hatred?
Obviously you don't read my posts, well certainly you don't read them with any clarity of mind.
If you had, you would not have asked such a stupid question.
Actualy, i have debated with 1 or 2 WBC hate preachers online.
They barely mention the NT and focus mainly on Old Testament books like Leviticus.
They wont quote: 1John 4:8:
Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love
The word Hate only appears about 80 times and i]Hates[/i] 27 times in the Bible and most of those are refering to humans doing the hating.
The word Love appears about 550 times and Loves appears about 76 times in the Bible and a great many of those refer to God's love.
Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2012 4:37 pm Post subject: Re: Heated political/religious discussions
I am really tired of seeing arguments over the religious views of Hitler and the Nazis. Seldom are they an attempt to actually learn anything, but rather an attempt to smear opponents with the implication that they, like the Nazis, want to murder millions. Here’s a thought, maybe Hitler was primarily a dictator who’s personal religions views are largely irrelevant and not known definitively; maybe Nazis were linked by a political organization regardless of their personal religions views. I know it sounds crazy, but stick with me here.
Let’s see what we have to support this:
The Nazis outlawed and closed atheist and free-thinker groups, with Hitler claiming to have stamped out the atheist movement. Christian individuals and organizations--particularly those with a doctrine and history of pacifism--who opposed Nazi goals were repressed and oppressed while alliances were forged with Christian individuals, institutions and churches who were supportive of Nazi goals. Maybe the Nazis were fearful of any organization lest it become the nucleus of an opposition movement but at the same time were accepting of support in their goals regardless of the source of such support.
What of the private religious views of Hitler? Frankly, they seem muddled but altogether subordinate to his views for Germany and himself. He speaks favorably of some parts of Christianity and unfavorably of others. But look at how he views which parts. He likes his view of Jesus as a fighter against those (Jews) who oppose him, but wishes Christianity supported militarism better, more like Islam does with its Jihad/martyrdom idea. He desired a halt to infighting between Catholics and Protestants in Germany because the Germans need to be united to fight their external enemies. He dislikes the idea of a foreign pope holding power over his people, but made a point of forming an alliance with the papal apparatus. He constantly spoke of god and providence, but held heterodox views.
What of other Nazi leaders? Himmler, for example, prohibited SS men from being church leaders, but also from being atheists. If I had to speculate I’d figure he wanted them to concentrate on SS stuff, not waste time with church duties, but was simultaneously suspicious that any atheist could be a godless-communist--the great boogieman to Nazis. Himmler personally moved away from the Catholicism of his youth and into German mythology and the occult—not Christian but not atheistic either. Goring appears to have remained Lutheran while Bormann seams to be an atheist. There was a group that was quite anti-Christian and wanted to break the churches and a group that opposed them. Hitler at least did not support their plan and maybe actually opposed it.
What about the average German? In 1939, 6 years into Nazi rule, the population was 3.5% neo-pagan and only 1.5% non-religious. If the Nazis had a goal of spreading atheism (something I’ve heard claimed but never supported) than they really sucked at it. With 94% of Germans being Christian, obviously most opposition to and support of the Nazis came from Christians. The Nazis could hardly have accomplished what they did if a majority of people were actively opposed to them and we can probably conclude that more people (and therefore more Christians) supported the Nazis than opposed them. Then there was a group, probably the majority, who were neither actively supporting nor actively opposing the Nazis, at least pre-war.
Should we speculate on why the Nazis enjoyed the support and acquiescence of the majority of German Christians? Some of the Nazi ideas, notably opposition to the godless-communists, probably appealed to people as Christians. However, most of their agenda was appealing to people as Germans, either in addition to or without appeal to their Christian side. Revenge for the injuries of the Versailles treaty, regaining lost territory and population, a strong Germany, economic development, ect. all have a nationalistic, not religions, appeal.
Look at the reasons for persecuting the Jews and you’ll find a mixture of religious and non-religious motives. Europe has a long history of anti-Semitism. Partly this is rooted in the idea of Jews as Christ-killers and the blood libel myth, but it is also based on the economic success of some Jews, particularly in the banking sector (ironically an area heavily dominated by Jews because they were often banned from trade or work guilds and even owning land, while the Catholic church disallowed Christians to charge each other usury). Add to that the view, in Germany at the time, that Jews as a major component of the group who stabbed Germany in the back at the end of the First World War and that they were seen as part of the international Communist movement and you have a hatred of Jews based on religious and social-economic-political ground.
Yes i have to agree with Stalky here and this and many more atrocities committed by Christian men is the reason i turn my back to it.
Hmm,
I'll never use a knife to prepare and eat my food, or use as a tool for work ... because some have used a knife to kill people.
I would think your knife of Christianity is closer to the sword of Damocles than the spear of Longinus,,, which in the long run has caused more damage ?
... like a mad dog, bit the stick with which he was struck
(not sure where this saying originated, but seen in a Martin Luther work)
Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2012 11:55 pm Post subject: Re: Heated political/religious discussions
AGS,
to answer one obvious point, just because you can 'only' find the word "hate" in the bible so-and-so many times doesn't mean that there aren't hateful things in the bible or that what is in the bible couldn't be interpreted so that it supports hateful views such as racist, misogynistic, homophobic, etc. views. And so has happened many times, in fact so many times that even average people on the street are getting fed up and leaving churces.
Also your continual disparaging of things that are "politically correct" makes you sound like someone like Breivik. Is that what you are?
To others,
about Finland and Nazi-Germany, it is true that Finland was a co-belligerent of Nazi-Germany. Finland fought three 'wars' in WW 2, Winter War (mostly alone with some German material help), Continuation War (together with Germany with their material help) and Lapland War (against Germans driving them out of Finland).
Right this moment I am at a spot where inside less then 100 meter radius, maybe just 50 meter radius, German and Finnish troops fought each other in one of the most fiercest battles of the Lapland war. Literally dozens of soldiers from both sides died at and around this very spot which now has houses but used to be a field with a railroad and a large wooden structure on one side. According to legend the Germans used machine guns against the Finns who used some brave snipers against the MG's, many Finns died trying to silence those MG's but in the entire Lapland war more Germans then Finns died total.
Infact this battle, and indeed the entire Lapland War, might make a nice CC - mod.
Both my grandfathers fought in all three 'wars' and one of them actually took part driving the Germans out of this very town. So AGS's accusations of "Finland being Nazis friend etc." does not compute with me. I am also very, very anti-Nazi myself so that just seals the deal.
I am really tired of seeing arguments over the religious views of Hitler and the Nazis. Seldom are they an attempt to actually learn anything, but rather an attempt to smear opponents with the implication that they, like the Nazis, want to murder millions. Here’s a thought, maybe Hitler was primarily a dictator who’s personal religions views are largely irrelevant and not known definitively; maybe Nazis were linked by a political organization regardless of their personal religions views. I know it sounds crazy, but stick with me here.
Let’s see what we have to support this:
The Nazis outlawed and closed atheist and free-thinker groups, with Hitler claiming to have stamped out the atheist movement. Christian individuals and organizations--particularly those with a doctrine and history of pacifism--who opposed Nazi goals were repressed and oppressed while alliances were forged with Christian individuals, institutions and churches who were supportive of Nazi goals. Maybe the Nazis were fearful of any organization lest it become the nucleus of an opposition movement but at the same time were accepting of support in their goals regardless of the source of such support.
What of the private religious views of Hitler? Frankly, they seem muddled but altogether subordinate to his views for Germany and himself. He speaks favorably of some parts of Christianity and unfavorably of others. But look at how he views which parts. He likes his view of Jesus as a fighter against those (Jews) who oppose him, but wishes Christianity supported militarism better, more like Islam does with its Jihad/martyrdom idea. He desired a halt to infighting between Catholics and Protestants in Germany because the Germans need to be united to fight their external enemies. He dislikes the idea of a foreign pope holding power over his people, but made a point of forming an alliance with the papal apparatus. He constantly spoke of god and providence, but held heterodox views.
What of other Nazi leaders? Himmler, for example, prohibited SS men from being church leaders, but also from being atheists. If I had to speculate I’d figure he wanted them to concentrate on SS stuff, not waste time with church duties, but was simultaneously suspicious that any atheist could be a godless-communist--the great boogieman to Nazis. Himmler personally moved away from the Catholicism of his youth and into German mythology and the occult—not Christian but not atheistic either. Goring appears to have remained Lutheran while Bormann seams to be an atheist. There was a group that was quite anti-Christian and wanted to break the churches and a group that opposed them. Hitler at least did not support their plan and maybe actually opposed it.
What about the average German? In 1939, 6 years into Nazi rule, the population was 3.5% neo-pagan and only 1.5% non-religious. If the Nazis had a goal of spreading atheism (something I’ve heard claimed but never supported) than they really sucked at it. With 94% of Germans being Christian, obviously most opposition to and support of the Nazis came from Christians. The Nazis could hardly have accomplished what they did if a majority of people were actively opposed to them and we can probably conclude that more people (and therefore more Christians) supported the Nazis than opposed them. Then there was a group, probably the majority, who were neither actively supporting nor actively opposing the Nazis, at least pre-war.
Should we speculate on why the Nazis enjoyed the support and acquiescence of the majority of German Christians? Some of the Nazi ideas, notably opposition to the godless-communists, probably appealed to people as Christians. However, most of their agenda was appealing to people as Germans, either in addition to or without appeal to their Christian side. Revenge for the injuries of the Versailles treaty, regaining lost territory and population, a strong Germany, economic development, ect. all have a nationalistic, not religions, appeal.
Look at the reasons for persecuting the Jews and you’ll find a mixture of religious and non-religious motives. Europe has a long history of anti-Semitism. Partly this is rooted in the idea of Jews as Christ-killers and the blood libel myth, but it is also based on the economic success of some Jews, particularly in the banking sector (ironically an area heavily dominated by Jews because they were often banned from trade or work guilds and even owning land, while the Catholic church disallowed Christians to charge each other usury). Add to that the view, in Germany at the time, that Jews as a major component of the group who stabbed Germany in the back at the end of the First World War and that they were seen as part of the international Communist movement and you have a hatred of Jews based on religious and social-economic-political ground.
I am really tired of seeing arguments over the religious views of Hitler and the Nazis. Seldom are they an attempt to actually learn anything, but rather an attempt to smear opponents with the implication that they, like the Nazis, want to murder millions. Here’s a thought, maybe Hitler was primarily a dictator who’s personal religions views are largely irrelevant and not known definitively; maybe Nazis were linked by a political organization regardless of their personal religions views. I know it sounds crazy, but stick with me here.
Let’s see what we have to support this:
The Nazis outlawed and closed atheist and free-thinker groups, with Hitler claiming to have stamped out the atheist movement. Christian individuals and organizations--particularly those with a doctrine and history of pacifism--who opposed Nazi goals were repressed and oppressed while alliances were forged with Christian individuals, institutions and churches who were supportive of Nazi goals. Maybe the Nazis were fearful of any organization lest it become the nucleus of an opposition movement but at the same time were accepting of support in their goals regardless of the source of such support.
What of the private religious views of Hitler? Frankly, they seem muddled but altogether subordinate to his views for Germany and himself. He speaks favorably of some parts of Christianity and unfavorably of others. But look at how he views which parts. He likes his view of Jesus as a fighter against those (Jews) who oppose him, but wishes Christianity supported militarism better, more like Islam does with its Jihad/martyrdom idea. He desired a halt to infighting between Catholics and Protestants in Germany because the Germans need to be united to fight their external enemies. He dislikes the idea of a foreign pope holding power over his people, but made a point of forming an alliance with the papal apparatus. He constantly spoke of god and providence, but held heterodox views.
What of other Nazi leaders? Himmler, for example, prohibited SS men from being church leaders, but also from being atheists. If I had to speculate I’d figure he wanted them to concentrate on SS stuff, not waste time with church duties, but was simultaneously suspicious that any atheist could be a godless-communist--the great boogieman to Nazis. Himmler personally moved away from the Catholicism of his youth and into German mythology and the occult—not Christian but not atheistic either. Goring appears to have remained Lutheran while Bormann seams to be an atheist. There was a group that was quite anti-Christian and wanted to break the churches and a group that opposed them. Hitler at least did not support their plan and maybe actually opposed it.
What about the average German? In 1939, 6 years into Nazi rule, the population was 3.5% neo-pagan and only 1.5% non-religious. If the Nazis had a goal of spreading atheism (something I’ve heard claimed but never supported) than they really sucked at it. With 94% of Germans being Christian, obviously most opposition to and support of the Nazis came from Christians. The Nazis could hardly have accomplished what they did if a majority of people were actively opposed to them and we can probably conclude that more people (and therefore more Christians) supported the Nazis than opposed them. Then there was a group, probably the majority, who were neither actively supporting nor actively opposing the Nazis, at least pre-war.
Should we speculate on why the Nazis enjoyed the support and acquiescence of the majority of German Christians? Some of the Nazi ideas, notably opposition to the godless-communists, probably appealed to people as Christians. However, most of their agenda was appealing to people as Germans, either in addition to or without appeal to their Christian side. Revenge for the injuries of the Versailles treaty, regaining lost territory and population, a strong Germany, economic development, ect. all have a nationalistic, not religions, appeal.
Look at the reasons for persecuting the Jews and you’ll find a mixture of religious and non-religious motives. Europe has a long history of anti-Semitism. Partly this is rooted in the idea of Jews as Christ-killers and the blood libel myth, but it is also based on the economic success of some Jews, particularly in the banking sector (ironically an area heavily dominated by Jews because they were often banned from trade or work guilds and even owning land, while the Catholic church disallowed Christians to charge each other usury). Add to that the view, in Germany at the time, that Jews as a major component of the group who stabbed Germany in the back at the end of the First World War and that they were seen as part of the international Communist movement and you have a hatred of Jews based on religious and social-economic-political ground.
Bravo Comrade
Its good to see somebody come and give an account of the facts without subjectifying it with his own preconceptions, agendas and biases (take note MF).
After having read you post, it makes a clear case that above all else, Hitler was a politician.
Of course, despite Loathing Christianity, Hitler had to feign approval of Christianity, because of the Demographics, while all the time planning its gradual demise.
Yes, Hitler discouraged total atheism as he linked it with Communism.
Hitler wanted religious fevour, but with himself as the idol.
The worship of Germaness, Aryaness.
Hence also the reinstalation of Germanic religion.
The old nordic symbols were being pushed to the fore, along with the names of the Nordic God's.
Weren't there some SS units with Nordic deity names?
Also, i used to watch Hogans Heroes all the time, when i was young.
There are still repeats on a free to air channel now.
doesn't mean that there aren't hateful things in the bible
The Bible covers the relationships between God and His creation humanity.
God created a perfect world and then allowed humanity the free will to go its own way.
Of course God hates the less than perfect, often perverse ways that humanity has used the gifts given it and the ugly behaviours they have chosen.
There is also much hate on the part of humanity, most of it is based in human selfishness.
or that what is in the bible couldn't be interpreted so that it supports hateful views such as racist, misogynistic, homophobic, etc. views.
Very true MF
There has been a LOT of things interpreted wrongly from the Bible, lets say: Misinterpreted!
There has been, for example, much misinterpretation on issues regarding the roles of Husbands and Wives.
These errors resulted in wrong treatment of women and led to the WLM which became an overreaction and has ultimately led to more social problems.
And so has happened many times, in fact so many times that even average people on the street are getting fed up and leaving churces.
Thats true (to some extent)........
People often leave the Churches because of the unChristian behaviour and attitudes of some of the people within Church groups.
The problem with Churches, is that they are full of humans
Humans are all born with the sinful nature, and none, no, not even Christians, are perfect.
Where you find humans in large numbers, you will find corruption............, always!
Also your continual disparaging of things that are "politically correct" makes you sound like someone like Breivik. Is that what you are?
Stalky ...........
..........................are you going to sit there and let MF get away with these continual smears?
No wonder MF got banned from a forum
The only people i know that exagerate on the same level as MF, all wear dresses.
Well, if you are such a politically correct person MF, i guess you would love us to send you a couple of thousand of our illegal Muslim immigrants to Finland so they can install Sharia Law there.
Make sure you put your Burkha on before you go out
Of course there are no Nazis or fascists in Finland......
Quote:
Fascism is rising in Finland. The party known as the "True Finns" is xenophobic and contains a hardcore Nazi faction. This blog distributes information about the True Finns and other fascists and racists operating in Finland.
It’s so easy for you... If a christan does something you don’t agree with, you just label him as a non-Christian.. No wonder there are only "good" Christians according to the “good” Christians…
OK
Lets say MF does an Anders Brevik and slaughters a heap of people next week.
Then 50-100 years in the future, there is another discussion like this....
Pretty sure some jerkoff atheist willl say;
"Look at this, we found records of MF, the mass muderer, having been a church goers and here is a microfish copy of MF's christining. So here is proof that Christians are mass murderers.
Unfortunately for the Christians in the discussion, the CCS website is long gone and there are no records of MF's renunciation of Chritianity, and MF's self-proclaimed atheism, so the atheists will use MF as proof of Christian mass murderers
Me, I will take the opposite position, and say that people who claim to be Christians, and whom are doing evil things are genuinely Christians....
And the Christians who are genuinely good only believe they are Christians, but instead they are unaware humanists ...
Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2012 8:06 am Post subject: Re: Heated political/religious discussions
Just 2 cents,
Quote:
Yes, Hitler discouraged total atheism as he linked it with Communism.
But USSR was never a state with total atheism - the Church was chased by Lenin, Trotskiy&Co but Stalin was pretty much ok with as far as it didn't interract with the State policy.
But the Russian Orthodox Church was indeed linking the Fascism to the Godless army of Antichrist and pronounced the anathema on the German Forces on June 23, 1941 and were calling molebens for the glory of the RA arms and armed forces since the start of invasion.
Since 1942 the ROCh bishops were chased by the German authorities on the occupied areas as only those prists/bishops who came with the Germans could run churches there.
The German authorities also greatly supported a formation of different types of Sect houses, especially in Ukraine.
Just 2 cents,
But USSR was never a state with total atheism - the Church was chased by Lenin, Trotskiy&Co but Stalin was pretty much ok with as far as it didn't interract with the State policy.
But the Russian Orthodox Church was indeed linking the Fascism to the Godless army of Antichrist and pronounced the anathema on the German Forces on June 23, 1941 and were calling molebens for the glory of the RA arms and armed forces since the start of invasion.
Since 1942 the ROCh bishops were chased by the German authorities on the occupied areas as only those prists/bishops who came with the Germans could run churches there.
The German authorities also greatly supported a formation of different types of Sect houses, especially in Ukraine.
Welcome to the dungeon Dima
Stalin, like Hitler, was a ruthless politician.
You are correct, Stalin was ok with the Church as long as they did not get in his way.
Stalin was also ok with the Church especially if they could rally his demoralised 1941 army with the motivation of a religious crusade against the anti-Christian Nazis.
BUT.................., re a Christian-friendly Communist USSR....................
Before i go there............, do you remember Sieterayos?
Siet is your communist's communist, or your Marxist's Marxist.
Should we ask him what the Marxist view on Christianity is, or all religions for that matter?
He would tell you that any genuine marxist/communist is an atheist and like MF and Hitler a true marxist would seek the elimination of any/all religion.
Now, back in the USSR.............
Quote:
The history of Christianity in the Soviet Union was not limited to repression and secularization. Soviet policy toward religion was based on the ideology of Marxism-Leninism, which made atheism the official doctrine of the Soviet Union. Marxism-Leninism has consistently advocated the control, suppression, and the elimination of religion.
The persecution of Christians in the USSR was the result of the violently atheist Soviet government. According to Orthodox Church sources, as many as fifty million Orthodox believers may have died in the twentieth century, mainly from persecution by Communists
The Soviet Union was the first state to have as an ideological objective the elimination of religion. Toward that end, the Communist regime confiscated church property, ridiculed religion, harassed believers, and propagated atheism in the schools.
Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2012 2:50 pm Post subject: Re: Heated political/religious discussions
Quote:
Stalin, like Hitler, was a ruthless politician.
like any other successfull leader/politician no matter of religion.
Quote:
Stalin was also ok with the Church especially if they could rally his demoralised 1941 army with the motivation of a religious crusade against the anti-Christian Nazis
No, the ROCh started their "war" against the Germany on it's own on June 22, 1941 - as it was always doing when Russia was invaded.
Stalin accepted to form Moscow Patriorchate in 1943 - nothing to do with demoralisation of army.
Quote:
BUT.................., re a Christian-friendly Communist USSR....................
Yes, kinda out of your vision of the World?
My parents were baptized as well as my wife's parents, and most of my friends when they were less than 1 yo. So it was not forbidden to be religion-friendly for the most part of USSR existence.
Quote:
Before i go there............, do you remember Sieterayos?
Siet is your communist's communist, or your Marxist's Marxist.
Should we ask him what the Marxist view on Christianity is, or all religions for that matter?
Siet is Trotskist - real Marxist.
Stalin was not, thus purges of Marxists and Cult of Personality when Marxists came to power again after the death of Stalin.
Quote:
The history of Christianity in the Soviet Union was not limited to repression and secularization. Soviet policy toward religion was based on the ideology of Marxism-Leninism, which made atheism the official doctrine of the Soviet Union. Marxism-Leninism has consistently advocated the control, suppression, and the elimination of religion.
Yes, but Stalin was betrayer of Marxism-Leninism(c)Khruschev and was ok with religion, thus weaking of the State oppression on Church since around 1936.
Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2012 10:42 pm Post subject: Re: Heated political/religious discussions
AGS,
I didn't claim there aren't any neo-Nazis in Finland, there are some. I was referring to your idea of Finland being very close to Nazi-Germany, which it wasn't. Finland's union with Germany was dictated by the situation at hand. Once the situation changed we kicked the Nazi troops out. Today we are trade partners with Germany and Russia and have good relations to both nations.
From what I hear there is plenty of neo-Nazi activity in Australia. And wasn't Australia founded as a colonial nation, in an area where there were already natives living. Somewhat problematic history.
But my problem really isn't with Australia but with religion. Austrlia and all nations would benefit from having less religion in them.
Your attacks against Muslims only make me more certain that you are of similar stance as many of these 'critics of multiculture', ideology that Breivik among others has promoted. When scratching the surface these people often turn out hating not just Muslims but also people of 'wrong skincolour', and foreigners and basically everyone but themselves. I guess you don't hate religion though, and that very much muffles your message of 'Muslim hate'.
Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 11:55 am Post subject: Re: Heated political/religious discussions
I think one of the more interesting topics covered in the Bible is how it explains our inner struggles.
Matthew Henry's commentary explains it further ...
Rom 7:14-25
Here is a description of the conflict between grace and corruption in the heart, between the law of God and the law of sin. And it is applicable two ways: - 1. To the struggles that are in a convinced soul, but yet unregenerate, in the person of whom it is supposed, by some, that Paul speaks. 2. To the struggles that are in a renewed sanctified soul, but yet in a state of imperfection; as other apprehend. And a great controversy there is of which of these we are to understand the apostle here. So far does the evil prevail here, when he speaks of one sold under sin, doing it, not performing that which is good, that it seems difficult to apply it to the regenerate, who are described to walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit; and yet so far does the good prevail in hating sin, consenting to the law, delighting in it, serving the law of God with the mind, that it is more difficult to apply it to the unregenerate that are dead in trespasses and sins.
I. Apply it to the struggles that are felt in a convinced soul, that is yet in a state of sin, knows his Lord's will, but does it not, approves the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law, and yet lives in the constant breach of it, Rom_2:17-23. Though he has that within him that witnesses against the sin he commits, and it is not without a great deal of reluctancy that he does commit it, the superior faculties striving against it, natural conscience warning against it before it is committed and smiting for it afterwards, yet the man continues a slave to his reigning lusts. It is not thus with every unregenerate man, but with those only that are convinced by the law, but not changed by the gospel. The apostle had said (Rom_6:14), Sin shall not have dominion, because you are not under the law, but under grace, for the proof of which he here shows that a man under the law, and not under grace, may be, and is, under the dominion of sin. The law may discover sin, and convince of sin, but it cannot conquer and subdue sin, witness the predominancy of sin in many that are under very strong legal convictions. It discovers the defilement, but will not wash it off. It makes a man weary and heavy laden (Mat_11:28, burdens him with his sin; and yet, if rested in, it yields no help towards the shaking off of that burden; this is to be had only in Christ. The law may make a man cry out, O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me? and yet leave him thus fettered and captivated, as being too weak to deliver him (Rom_8:3), give him a spirit of bondage to fear, Rom_8:15. Now a soul advanced thus far by the law is in a fair way towards a state of liberty by Christ, though many rest here and go no further. Felix trembled, but never came to Christ. It is possible for a man to go to hell with his eyes open (Num_24:3, Num_24:4), illuminated with common convictions, and to carry about with him a self-accusing conscience, even in the service of the devil. He may consent to the law that it is good, delight to know God's ways (as they, Isa_58:2), may have that within him that witnesses against sin and for holiness; and yet all this overpowered by the reigning love of sin. Drunkards and unclean persons have some faint desires to leave off their sins, and yet persist in them notwithstanding, such is the impotency and such the insufficiency of their convictions. Of such as these there are many that will needs have all this understood, and contend earnestly for it: though it is very hard to imagine why, if the apostle intended this, he should speak all along in his own person; and not only so, but in the present tense. Of his own state under conviction he had spoken at large, as of a thing past (Rom_7:7, etc.): I died; the commandment I found to be unto death; and if here he speaks of the same state as his present state, and the condition he was now in, surely he did not intend to be so understood: and therefore,
II. It seems rather to be understood of the struggles that are maintained between grace and corruption in sanctified souls. That there are remainders of indwelling corruption, even where there is a living principle of grace, is past dispute; that this corruption is daily breaking forth in sins of infirmity (such as are consistent with a state of grace) is no less certain. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, 1Jo_1:8, 1Jo_1:10. That true grace strives against these sins and corruptions, does not allow of them, hates them, mourns over them, groans under them as a burden, is likewise certain (Gal_5:17): The flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary the one to the other, so that you cannot do the things that you would. These are the truths which, I think, are contained in this discourse of the apostle. And his design is further to open the nature of sanctification, that it does not attain to a sinless perfection in this life; and therefore to quicken us to, and encourage us in, our conflicts with remaining corruptions. Our case is not singular, that which we do sincerely strive against, shall not be laid to our charge, and through grace the victory is sure at last. The struggle here is like that between Jacob and Esau in the womb, between the Canaanites and Israelites in the land, between the house of Saul and the house of David; but great is the truth and will prevail. Understanding it thus, we may observe here,
1. What he complains of - the remainder of indwelling corruptions, which he here speaks of, to show that the law is insufficient to justify even a regenerate man, that the best man in the world hath enough in him to condemn him, if God should deal with him according to the law, which is not the fault of the law, but of our own corrupt nature, which cannot fulfil the law. The repetition of the same things over and over again in this discourse shows how much Paul's heart was affected with what he wrote, and how deep his sentiments were. Observe the particulars of this complaint. (1.) I am carnal, sold under sin, Rom_7:14. He speaks of the Corinthians as carnal, 1Co_3:1. Even where there is spiritual life there are remainders of carnal affections, and so far a man may be sold under sin; he does not sell himself to work wickedness, as Ahab did (1Ki_21:25), but he was sold by Adam when he sinned and fell - sold, as a poor slave that does his master's will against his own will - sold under sin, because conceived in iniquity and born in sin. (2.) What I would, that I do not; but what I hate, that do I, Rom_7:15. And to the same purport, Rom_7:19, Rom_7:21, When I would do good, evil is present with me. Such was the strength of corruptions, that he could not attain that perfection in holiness which he desired and breathed after. Thus, while he was pressing forward towards perfection, yet he acknowledges that he had not already attained, neither was already perfect, Phi_3:12. Fain he would be free from all sin, and perfectly do the will of God, such was his settled judgment; but his corrupt nature drew him another way: it was like a clog, that checked and kept him down when he would have soared upward, like the bias in a bowl, which, when it is thrown straight, yet draws it aside. (3.) In me, that is in my flesh, dwelleth no good, Rom_7:18. Here he explains himself concerning the corrupt nature, which he calls flesh; and as far as that goes there is no good to be expected, any more than one would expect good corn growing upon a rock, or on the sand which is by the sea-side. As the new nature, as far as that goes, cannot commit sin (1Jo_3:9), so the flesh, the old nature, as far as that goes, cannot perform a good duty. How should it? For the flesh serveth the law of sin (Rom_7:25), it is under the conduct and government of that law; and, while it is so, it is not likely to do any good. The corrupt nature is elsewhere called flesh (Gen_6:3, Joh_3:6); and, though there may be good things dwelling in those that have this flesh, yet, as far as the flesh goes, there is no good, the flesh is not a subject capable of any good. (4.) I see another law in my members warring against the law of my mind, Rom_7:23. The corrupt and sinful inclination is here compared to a law, because it controlled and checked him in his good motions. It is said to be seated in his members, because, Christ having set up his throne in his heart, it was only the rebellious members of the body that were the instruments of sin - in the sensitive appetite; or we may take it more generally for all that corrupt nature which is the seat not only of sensual but of more refined lusts. This wars against the law of the mind, the new nature; it draws the contrary way, drives on a contrary interest, which corrupt disposition and inclination are as great a burden and grief to the soul as the worst drudgery and captivity could be. It brings me into captivity. To the same purport (Rom_7:25), With the flesh I serve the law of sin; that is, the corrupt nature, the unregenerate part, is continually working towards sin. (5.) His general complaint we have in Rom_7:24, O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? The thing he complains of is a body of death; either the body of flesh, which is a mortal dying body (while we carry this body about with us, we shall be troubled with corruption; when we are dead, we shall be freed from sin, and not before), or the body of sin, the old man, the corrupt nature, which tends to death, that is, to the ruin of the soul. Or, comparing it to a dead body, the touch of which was by the ceremonial law defiling, if actual transgressions be dead works (Heb_9:14), original corruption is a dead body. It was as troublesome to Paul as if he had had a dead body tied to him, which he must have carried about with him. This made him cry out, O wretched man that I am! A man that had learned in every state to be content yet complains thus of his corrupt nature. Had I been required to speak of Paul, I should have said, “O blessed man that thou art, an ambassador of Christ, a favourite of heaven, a spiritual father of thousands!” But in his own account he was a wretched man, because of the corruption of nature, because he was not so good as he fain would be, had not yet attained, neither was already perfect. Thus miserably does he complain. Who shall deliver me? He speaks like one that was sick of it, that would give any thing to be rid of it, looks to the right hand and to the left for some friend that would part between him and his corruptions. The remainders of indwelling sin are a very grievous burden to a gracious soul.
2. What he comforts himself with. The case was sad, but there were some allays. Three things comforted him: -
(1.) That his conscience witnessed for him that he had a good principle ruling and prevailing in him, notwithstanding. It is well when all does not go one way in the soul. The rule of this good principle which he had was the law of God, to which he here speaks of having a threefold regard, which is certainly to be found in all that are sanctified, and no others. [1.] I consent unto the law that it is good, Rom_7:16, sumph?mi - I give my vote to the law; here is the approbation of the judgment. Wherever there is grace there is not only a dread of the severity of the law, but a consent to the goodness of the law. “It is a good in itself, it is good for me.” This is a sign that the law is written in the heart, that the soul is delivered into the mould of it. To consent to the law is so far to approve of it as not to wish it otherwise constituted than it is. The sanctified judgment not only concurs to the equity of the law, but to the excellency of it, as convinced that a conformity to the law is the highest perfection of human nature, and the greatest honour and happiness we are capable of. [2.] I delight in the law of God after the inward man, Rom_7:22. His conscience bore witness to a complacency in the law. He delighted not only in the promises of the word, but in the precepts and prohibitions of the word; sun?domai expresses a becoming delight. He did herein concur in affection with all the saints. All that are savingly regenerate or born again do truly delight in the law of God, delight to know it, to do it - cheerfully submit to the authority of it, and take a complacency in that submission, never better pleased than when heart and life are in the strictest conformity to the law and will of God. After the inward man; that is, First, The mind or rational faculties, in opposition to the sensitive appetites and wills of the flesh. The soul is the inward man, and that is the seat of gracious delights, which are therefore sincere and serious, but secret; it is the renewing of the inward man, 2Co_4:16. Secondly, The new nature. The new man is called the inner man (Eph_3:16), the hidden man of the heart, 1Pe_3:4. Paul, as far as he was sanctified, had a delight in the law of God. [3.] With the mind I myself serve the law of God, Rom_7:25. It is not enough to consent to the law, and to delight in the law, but we must serve the law; our souls must be entirely delivered up into the obedience of it. Thus it was with Paul's mind; thus it is with every sanctified renewed mind; this is the ordinary course and way; thitherward goes the bent of the soul. I myself - autos eg?, plainly intimating that he speaks in his own person, and not in the person of another.
(2.) That the fault lay in that corruption of his nature which he did really bewail and strive against: It is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. This he mentions twice (Rom_7:17, Rom_7:20), not as an excuse for the guilt of his sin (it is enough to condemn us, if we were under the law, that the sin which does the evil dwelleth in us), but as a salvo for his evidences, that he might not sink in despair, but take comfort from the covenant of grace, which accepts the willingness of the spirit, and has provided pardon for the weakness of the flesh. He likewise herein enters a protestation against all that which this indwelling sin produced. Having professed his consent to the law of God, he here professes his dissent from the law of sin. “It is not I; I disown the fact; it is against my mind that it is done.” As when in the senate the major part are bad, and carry every thing the wrong way, it is indeed the act of the senate, but the honest party strive against it, bewail what is done, and enter their protestation against it; so that it is no more they that do it. - Dwelleth in me, as the Canaanites among the Israelites, though they were put under tribute: dwelleth in me, and is likely to dwell there, while I live.
(3.) His great comfort lay in Jesus Christ (Rom_7:25): I thank God, through Jesus Christ our Lord. In the midst of his complaints he breaks out into praises. It is a special remedy against fears and sorrows to be much in praise: many a poor drooping soul hath found it so. And, in all our praises, this should be the burden of the son, “Blessed be God for Jesus Christ.” Who shall deliver me? says he (Rom_7:24), as one at a loss for help. At length he finds an all-sufficient friend, even Jesus Christ. When we are under the sense of the remaining power of sin and corruption, we shall see reason to bless God through Christ (for, as he is the mediator of all our prayers, so he is of all our praises) - to bless God for Christ; it is he that stands between us and the wrath due to us for this sin. If it were not for Christ, this iniquity that dwells in us would certainly be our ruin. He is our advocate with the Father, and through him God pities, and spares, and pardons, and lays not our iniquities to our charge. It is Christ that has purchased deliverance for us in due time. Through Christ death will put an end to all these complaints, and waft us to an eternity which we shall spend without sin or sigh. Blessed be God that giveth us this victory through our Lord Jesus Christ!
Posted: Wed Aug 29, 2012 2:51 am Post subject: Re: Heated political/religious discussions
In my opinion, a practical and clear explanation of the unique and beneficial Gospel perspective ... from Matthew Henry's commentary of a section of Romans 6
For me personally, it helps resolve a disconnect between our expectations of being a reborn Christian and the realities of living that out on a daily basis.
Sin may struggle in a believer, and may create him a great deal of trouble, but it shall not have dominion; it may vex him, but shall not rule over him. For we are not under the law, but under grace, not under the law of sin and death, but under the law of the spirit of life, which is in Christ Jesus: we are actuated by other principles than we have been: new lords, new laws. Or, not under the covenant of works, which requires brick, and gives no straw, which condemns upon the least failure, which runs thus, “Do this, and live; do it not, and die;” but under the covenant of grace, which accepts sincerity as our gospel perfection, which requires nothing but what it promises strength to perform, which is herein well ordered, that every transgression in the covenant does not put us out of covenant, and especially that it does not leave our salvation in our own keeping, but lays it up in the hands of the Mediator, who undertakes for us that sin shall not have dominion over us, who hath himself condemned it, and will destroy it; so that, if we pursue the victory, we shall come off more than conquerors. Christ rules by the golden sceptre of grace, and he will not let sin have dominion over those that are willing subjects to that rule. This is a very comfortable word to all true believers. If we were under the law, we were undone, for the law curses every one that continues not in every thing; but we are under grace, grace which accepts the willing mind, which is not extreme to mark what we do amiss, which leaves room for repentance, which promises pardon upon repentance; and what can be to an ingenuous mind a stronger motive than this to have nothing to do with sin?
Finland's union with Germany was dictated by the situation at hand. Once the situation changed we kicked the Nazi troops out.
"Union", WOW!, that sounds like a very close relationship........., marriage is a "union".
Yes, i am well aware that Finland only allied itself with Nazi Germany because Germany was fighting the Russians who the Finns were not fond of.
From what I hear there is plenty of neo-Nazi activity in Australia
Yes there are neo-Nazis Australia, there are Neo-Nazis everywhere, all over the earth
But "plenty of activity", no!
In Australia, because of our population's foundation in Christian Love, we are multi-racial and multi-religious friendly and very anti-Fascist, so we beat the Neo-Nazis with very big sticks so that they keep pretty quiet.
We certainly wont allow them to form a political party (that would be too Nazi-friendly)
Your attacks against Muslims only make me more certain that you are of similar stance as many of these 'critics of multiculture', ideology that Breivik among others has promoted.
Your exaggerate and overstate my position, you should get a job writing for a tabloid.
Or you could start your own tabloid and call it "The Strawman".
My complaint (not attack) was:
(A) against illegal immigrants (mostly economic immigrants) claiming to be assylum seekers so as to illegitimately gain access to our country.
The people smugglers actually coach them on how to fabricate stories that enable them to cheat their way into getting Australian residency under international assylum laws.
It is even more disgustuing that these cheats waste so much of our immigration administration's time that they have no time to process the real, genuine, legitimate assylum seekers who apply legally, properly and legitimately from outside Australia.
It sickens me that the system, at this present time, favours criminals and disadvantages genuine assylum seekers.
None of the illegal immigrant boat people are even genuinley poor by 3rd world standards!
The price they pay, per head, to get a spot on the people smuggler's boats starts at $5,000-USD!!!!!
Thats 2-5 years wages, in most 3rd world countries !!!!!!
For a family of 4, thats $20,000 USD, they could buy a realy good business, a farm for that in Indonesia, Thailand, India or whereever.
There are some muslims coming to Australia, that are genuine assylum seekers, and dont bother me. For example the Hazara muslims from Afghanistan. The Hazara people integrate with Australians quite well and behave decently. The Hazara are welcome here
So clearly i do not hate Muslims
A discerning reader, will easily understand, that i only hate the behaviour of a few trouble making muslims.
When scratching the surface these people often turn out hating not just Muslims but also people of 'wrong skincolour', and foreigners and basically everyone but themselves.
My favourite workmate is part aboriginal, i had a friend at Bible College who was a black Kenyan and my wife is 100% asian, so you can't throw the racist crap at me either
My best friend here in Australia has the name: "Rhue", so i'm not racist against Scandinavians either
Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:45 am Post subject: Re: Heated political/religious discussions
Finland's alliance with Germany was not so simple. At the time, Finland was being harassed and intimidated by Stalin. Especially after Stalin was humiliated at the miserable failure of his initial offensive against the Finns. So it did make sense at the time for the Finn's to seek alliance with Germany. Then albeit a shrewd calculating move...when the cards dealt looked very bad for the Finns alliance with Germany they switched sides.
Finland was the only former Nazi collaborator nation to escape vengeance by Soviets or the West. The Finland people used both sides against each other perfectly and escaped the war without having to be occupied by the Soviets or U.S.
Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 10:34 am Post subject: Re: Heated political/religious discussions
Wow.. the last few posts have revealed some interesting beliefs amongst the believers.
First.. AGS Your feelings about the "boat people" To Quote "these people sicken you" Because their availability to $5000 US means they aren't genuine refugees.
I would have thought your Christian beliefs would prevent your philistine attitude?
I know that if i had the money to move my family to safety at that cost from Afghanistan to a better life, than i would be prepared to spend my life savings.
I personally admire their grit... are they "illegals" ... yes.
Do i want them kicked out?.. no
I personally believe that somebody who has worked his arse off to make it here will eventually benefit the country... (minus our politicians and do gooders)
If they want to work then they are welcome.
So it would seem that and old atheist bushy has a more Christian outlook then a modern day Baptist... strange furniture there....
Which brings
me to MajourFrank... you posted some leads to David showing your contemporary view of the Australian political scene from bygone eras.. lol... Ive been kicking around Australia for nearly 40 years.. haven't seen more then a dozen skinheads in that time...are white Australians racist... some... will they kill you because of it? hardly, the majority of people i know couldn't give a rats arse.
As long as you do your job and don't think your better then somebody else.. you will do ok in Oz.
David your promulgation from the bible from Romans about sin is all very well... you may live under grace. BUT you still live under the law....you will do well to remember it.
I hope and can see that you live your life following this wisdom that you have found in a book.
I follow a similar attitude i found by living and learning from my mistakes.
No divine intervention needed.
By your standards i'm a sinner ... by my standards your a wowser.
European anti-racism campaigners have criticised moves by Finnish authorities to colour-code the country's ID cards, with bright blue cards for native-born citizens and brown cards for all foreign nationals, calling the new scheme "legalised ethnic profiling".
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
In August of 2004, Zappi, Homba, Bambam887, RedScorpion and MOOXE all pitched
in to create this Close Combat site. I would to thank all the people who have visited
and found this site to thier liking. I hope you had time to check out some
of the great Close Combat mods and our forums. I'd also like to thank
all the members of our volunteer staff that have helped over
the years, and all our users that contributed to this site!
,.........well 
You can be very funny some times 
