What do Christians really think of Non-Believers?

[BigBallinStalin]

Anyway, here's your stance: "they weren't designed to die, the fact that we die, is because they sinned,"

How do you know?

because it's in the bible AND it makes sense scientifically.

It's in the bible. Why does that matter?

How does it make sense scientifically?

[Borderdawg]

WOW!!! Reading this thread, I'm really glad I am neither christian, nor atheist, rather I am a pantheist (pagan).
One thing though. Zimmah, the things you say, and the way you say them, I find remind me most unpleasantly of Anders Breivik. Might you be an acolyte of his? I believe he too has a rather twisted view of christianity.

[BigBallinStalin]

Is profit-seeking morally wrong?

if you seek profit, do you think you love your neighbors as yourself? or do you seek profit to be richer then your neighbors, if the latter is the case, it's morally wrong, as it goes directly against the second most important commandment in the bible.

Why is it wrong to earn a profit in order to be richer than your neighbors?

You're implying that it is wrong for any poor person to seek a profit if he wants to be richer than his neighbors. Why are you arguing that poor people should remain poor--unless the profit-seeker loves his neighbors as himself?

What if he can't stand some of his neighbors and wants to make a profit in order to move? That's morally wrong?

[patches70]

Is profit-seeking morally wrong?

if you seek profit, do you think you love your neighbors as yourself? or do you seek profit to be richer then your neighbors, if the latter is the case, it's morally wrong, as it goes directly against the second most important commandment in the bible.

Why is it wrong to earn a profit in order to be richer than your neighbors?

You're implying that it is wrong for any poor person to seek a profit if he wants to be richer than his neighbors. Why are you arguing that poor people should remain poor--unless the profit-seeker loves his neighbors as himself?

What if he can't stand some of his neighbors and wants to make a profit in order to move? That's morally wrong?

I think the guy should refer to Jesus' parable of the talents to see the morality of profit......

[patches70]

To consider, for those who think "profit" is wrong.

Charity would be considered "moral" would it not? If you were to answer "yes, charity is moral and much desired by God", then consider this-

can you give charity if you have nothing?

Charity comes from excess. You bake ten loaves of bread but only need 5 for you and your family. So you sell 3 loaves (for a profit) and give the other 2 loaves away as charity. Without profit there is no charity. If you don't take what you have and turn it into more, then you won't have enough to give charity would you?

Remember God's very first commandment he ever gave human beings- "Be fruitful and multiply." Hmm.....

[zimmah]

WOW!!! Reading this thread, I'm really glad I am neither christian, nor atheist, rather I am a pantheist (pagan).
One thing though. Zimmah, the things you say, and the way you say them, I find remind me most unpleasantly of Anders Breivik. Might you be an acolyte of his? I believe he too has a rather twisted view of christianity.

twisted view? this is what the bible sais.

[zimmah]

Is profit-seeking morally wrong?

if you seek profit, do you think you love your neighbors as yourself? or do you seek profit to be richer then your neighbors, if the latter is the case, it's morally wrong, as it goes directly against the second most important commandment in the bible.

Why is it wrong to earn a profit in order to be richer than your neighbors?

You're implying that it is wrong for any poor person to seek a profit if he wants to be richer than his neighbors. Why are you arguing that poor people should remain poor--unless the profit-seeker loves his neighbors as himself?

What if he can't stand some of his neighbors and wants to make a profit in order to move? That's morally wrong?

seeking profit just for the sake of profit (= wanting to be richer than anyone else, just because you can) is directly opposite of loving your neighbours as yourself, therefore, it's unethical. it's much better to share what you have. If everyone shares, you'll see there's plenty for everyone.

[zimmah]

To consider, for those who think "profit" is wrong.

Charity would be considered "moral" would it not? If you were to answer "yes, charity is moral and much desired by God", then consider this-

can you give charity if you have nothing?

Charity comes from excess. You bake ten loaves of bread but only need 5 for you and your family. So you sell 3 loaves (for a profit) and give the other 2 loaves away as charity. Without profit there is no charity. If you don't take what you have and turn it into more, then you won't have enough to give charity would you?

Remember God's very first commandment he ever gave human beings- "Be fruitful and multiply." Hmm.....

or you could just not sell the 3 loaves and share the 5.

also 'earning' more just for the sake of giving it away is none-sense. For the resources you earn, are taken from someone else. Taking just to give back a percentage of what you took is not really effective, and it's what creates the unequal world. It's just a way for you to justify your way of life, because you know it's wrong but you don't want to change it, therefore you make up things like this so you can still sleep at night.

[BigBallinStalin]

Is profit-seeking morally wrong?

if you seek profit, do you think you love your neighbors as yourself? or do you seek profit to be richer then your neighbors, if the latter is the case, it's morally wrong, as it goes directly against the second most important commandment in the bible.

Why is it wrong to earn a profit in order to be richer than your neighbors?

You're implying that it is wrong for any poor person to seek a profit if he wants to be richer than his neighbors. Why are you arguing that poor people should remain poor--unless the profit-seeker loves his neighbors as himself?

What if he can't stand some of his neighbors and wants to make a profit in order to move? That's morally wrong?

seeking profit just for the sake of profit (= wanting to be richer than anyone else, just because you can) is directly opposite of loving your neighbours as yourself, therefore, it's unethical. it's much better to share what you have. If everyone shares, you'll see there's plenty for everyone.

How is obtaining a profit for the sake of "being richer than others" mutually exclusive from loving others as you love yourself?

Besides, there's more motives for earning a profit than "because you can." So, since there are more motives involved, then how is your interpretation relevant?

Why don't you share with the CC community 95% of your income and savings?

[pmchugh]

to god there's either good or bad. but only he can decide who's in the good or bad side. Yes, some people who claim to be Christians will be considered bad, and people who claim not to be christian may be considered good, but even then it's better to try and do what god wants you to do. In the end, there will be equality, because in the end, there are no baddies anymore. This world will reach it's climax soon Jesus will wage war against the devil and his system, destroy it, imprison the devil for 1000 years allowing the remainder of mankind and those who have died before the climax to recover and after the 1000 years the devil will be unleashed for a short period of time for the last time, then the final moment of truth will be, at that point, you can make the ultimate decision, do i want to live in the world where you have lived a 1000 years in peace for the rest of eternity or do you not want to, it's up to you.

Most of this is not really to do with our debate. How can anyone be purely good or bad? Even the most wicked man sometimes performs acts of kindness? And no man is without sin. This is a grey scale, how can you split a grey scale fairly?

it is total none-sense to claim Jesus is God. the bible does not support this idea in the slightest.

Obviously I wasn't saying this was literally true I was merely restating what Christians have proclaimed in the past.

so if your parents tell you "don't do drugs" and you go out and you do drugs and you get a bad trip from it, who's responsible, you, or your parents?

First off, I don't think doing drugs is necessarily an immoral thing to do but that is a topic for another day. Lets say I did something we all agree is wrong, murder. Would my parents be responsible for this kill? No. However there is a break down in the analogy; my parents could not have possible known that I would murder before hand where as God would have. Also note that if you claim God is not responsible for bad in this world then you also claim he is not responsible for the good.

And god took sides in war only to protect (and punish) his nation. To understand that you have to actually understand the basic idea of the bible and it's not something we can discuss easily in a matter of minutes. It takes deep knowledge of the bible.

So there are situations in which taking sides in a war is right? Why can't Christians do that then as per your previous post?

Your views on evolution are so clearly burying your head in the sand.. you even said there was "no evidence " for it. Enough said.

there isn't you keep saying there is, but there's more evidence for the stories in the bible then there is for anything that counters the bible. furthermore you nor anyone else could ever show me any evidence that convinces me and the billions of other believers around the world that the bible is not true. So who is sticking the head in the sand now?

Don't blaim me for being ignorant, while it is you being too lazy to truly seek the truth and obey gods superior leadership, instead you find it easier to somewhat obey a human government. I seriously can't believe how stupid humanity has become.

I have read pro-evolutionist material e.g. The Selfish Gene and pro-creationist material e.g. The Bible can you say the same thing? Maybe you have but I would be surprised.

The bit in blue is my favourite sentence of this whole debate. You say that no matter what evidence I show you, I could never convince you that the Bible is not true and then someone how unbelievable tell me that I have my head in the sand in the very next sentence. If someone came out with a proof against evolution that worked I would believe it, you openly admit this is not the case for yourself.

Question: Do you believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old?

[zimmah]

Is profit-seeking morally wrong?

if you seek profit, do you think you love your neighbors as yourself? or do you seek profit to be richer then your neighbors, if the latter is the case, it's morally wrong, as it goes directly against the second most important commandment in the bible.

Why is it wrong to earn a profit in order to be richer than your neighbors?

You're implying that it is wrong for any poor person to seek a profit if he wants to be richer than his neighbors. Why are you arguing that poor people should remain poor--unless the profit-seeker loves his neighbors as himself?

What if he can't stand some of his neighbors and wants to make a profit in order to move? That's morally wrong?

seeking profit just for the sake of profit (= wanting to be richer than anyone else, just because you can) is directly opposite of loving your neighbours as yourself, therefore, it's unethical. it's much better to share what you have. If everyone shares, you'll see there's plenty for everyone.

How is obtaining a profit for the sake of "being richer than others" mutually exclusive from loving others as you love yourself?

Besides, there's more motives for earning a profit than "because you can." So, since there are more motives involved, then how is your interpretation relevant?

Why don't you share with the CC community 95% of your income and savings?

because your objective is to be above the rest, which automaticaly means you love yourself more then others.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

then tell me, why do we die?

Here's a good start:

The seven types of aging damage proposed by de Grey (The Seven Deadly Things)
Main article: Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence

Cancer-causing nuclear mutations/epimutations:

These are changes to the nuclear DNA (nDNA), the molecule that contains our genetic information, or to proteins which bind to the nDNA. Certain mutations can lead to cancer, and, according to de Grey, non-cancerous mutations and epimutations do not contribute to aging within a normal lifespan, so cancer is the only endpoint of these types of damage that must be addressed.

Mitochondrial mutations:

Mitochondria are components in our cells that are important for energy production. They contain their own genetic material, and mutations to their DNA can affect a cell’s ability to function properly. Indirectly, these mutations may accelerate many aspects of aging.

Intracellular aggregates:

Our cells are constantly breaking down proteins and other molecules that are no longer useful or which can be harmful. Those molecules which can’t be digested simply accumulate as junk inside our cells. Atherosclerosis, macular degeneration and all kinds of neurodegenerative diseases (such as Alzheimer's disease) are associated with this problem.

Extracellular aggregates:

Harmful junk protein can also accumulate outside of our cells. The amyloid senile plaque seen in the brains of Alzheimer’s patients is one example.

Cell loss:

Some of the cells in our bodies cannot be replaced, or can only be replaced very slowly - more slowly than they die. This decrease in cell number causes the heart to become weaker with age, and it also causes Parkinson's disease and impairs the immune system.

Cell senescence:

This is a phenomenon where the cells are no longer able to divide, but also do not die and let others divide. They may also do other things that they’re not supposed to, like secreting proteins that could be harmful. Immune senescence and type 2 diabetes are caused by this.[citation needed]

Extracellular crosslinks:

Cells are held together by special linking proteins. When too many cross-links form between cells in a tissue, the tissue can lose its elasticity and cause problems including arteriosclerosis and presbyopia.[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aubrey_de_Grey#The_seven_types_of_aging_damage_proposed_by_de_Grey_.28The_Seven_Deadly_Things.29

that is just the effect, not the cause or reason.

why does our body, which is healing itself all it's life suddenly stop healing itself?

This is really starting to become a trademark of yours. Post inane things about stuff you don't understand.

You body doesn't suddenly stop healing itself, it slowly becomes less efficient at doing so the older you get. At some point, the damage incurred > the ability to recuperate. Also, any part of your body that's been injured is never what it used to be. You never heal completely.

Some tissues, like muscle and neural, cannot be repaired or regrown. You have what you have and that's it. Tearing a muscle is so devastating because it might take years to repair.

I don't think you understand the damage that your body takes every second of every day.

-TG

[zimmah]

First off, I don't think doing drugs is necessarily an immoral thing to do but that is a topic for another day. Lets say I did something we all agree is wrong, murder. Would my parents be responsible for this kill? No. However there is a break down in the analogy; my parents could not have possible known that I would murder before hand where as God would have. Also note that if you claim God is not responsible for bad in this world then you also claim he is not responsible for the good.

i agree partly with that. it depends on what you call the good. if you mean the good coming from our society, like charity, then yes, i agree, that good does not come from god either, but from the persons involved in charity in whatever way.

however god did a lot of good for us by creating the earth and allowing us to live on it, and creating the perfect environment for us, creating a wild variation in color, scents, lifeforms, taste, etc. life would be much less fun if everything sounded the same, everything looked the same, everything tasted the same, etc. life would be possible like that, but it'd be hella boring. so if you are talking about THAT KIND of good, then obviously we're talking about god.

Most of this is not really to do with our debate. How can anyone be purely good or bad? Even the most wicked man sometimes performs acts of kindness? And no man is without sin. This is a grey scale, how can you split a grey scale fairly?

only god can judge that. i won't even try.

So there are situations in which taking sides in a war is right? Why can't Christians do that then as per your previous post?

we do chose a side, the side of god. but god is no longer bound to a physical nation, whereas in the past he was with the nation of Israel (not to be confused with current day Israel). we do not get involved in human political conflicts though. Why would Christians living in say Germany take up arms against Christians in Spain, just to name some random countries.

I have read pro-evolutionist material e.g. The Selfish Gene and pro-creationist material e.g. The Bible can you say the same thing? Maybe you have but I would be surprised.

The bit in blue is my favourite sentence of this whole debate. You say that no matter what evidence I show you, I could never convince you that the Bible is not true and then someone how unbelievable tell me that I have my head in the sand in the very next sentence. If someone came out with a proof against evolution that worked I would believe it, you openly admit this is not the case for yourself.

Question: Do you believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old?

i have read a lot in my life from different sources and authors, and i know both sides of the stories, i also read other religious books like the koran. but after all, i decided the bible is the most truthful of anything.

and no, the earth is in no way less then 10,000 years old. probably not even less then 10 times that amount.

with the blue sentence i ment that no matter how many people have tried, noone has ever showed any believable evidence against the bible yet. yet, people say i'm not doing my research, while i'm quite sure i have done much more research then most of the people who claim i am sticking my head in the sand. sorry if my exact wording was causing confusion.

[zimmah]

then tell me, why do we die?

Here's a good start:

The seven types of aging damage proposed by de Grey (The Seven Deadly Things)
Main article: Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence

Cancer-causing nuclear mutations/epimutations:

These are changes to the nuclear DNA (nDNA), the molecule that contains our genetic information, or to proteins which bind to the nDNA. Certain mutations can lead to cancer, and, according to de Grey, non-cancerous mutations and epimutations do not contribute to aging within a normal lifespan, so cancer is the only endpoint of these types of damage that must be addressed.

Mitochondrial mutations:

Mitochondria are components in our cells that are important for energy production. They contain their own genetic material, and mutations to their DNA can affect a cell’s ability to function properly. Indirectly, these mutations may accelerate many aspects of aging.

Intracellular aggregates:

Our cells are constantly breaking down proteins and other molecules that are no longer useful or which can be harmful. Those molecules which can’t be digested simply accumulate as junk inside our cells. Atherosclerosis, macular degeneration and all kinds of neurodegenerative diseases (such as Alzheimer's disease) are associated with this problem.

Extracellular aggregates:

Harmful junk protein can also accumulate outside of our cells. The amyloid senile plaque seen in the brains of Alzheimer’s patients is one example.

Cell loss:

Some of the cells in our bodies cannot be replaced, or can only be replaced very slowly - more slowly than they die. This decrease in cell number causes the heart to become weaker with age, and it also causes Parkinson's disease and impairs the immune system.

Cell senescence:

This is a phenomenon where the cells are no longer able to divide, but also do not die and let others divide. They may also do other things that they’re not supposed to, like secreting proteins that could be harmful. Immune senescence and type 2 diabetes are caused by this.[citation needed]

Extracellular crosslinks:

Cells are held together by special linking proteins. When too many cross-links form between cells in a tissue, the tissue can lose its elasticity and cause problems including arteriosclerosis and presbyopia.[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aubrey_de_Grey#The_seven_types_of_aging_damage_proposed_by_de_Grey_.28The_Seven_Deadly_Things.29

that is just the effect, not the cause or reason.

why does our body, which is healing itself all it's life suddenly stop healing itself?

This is really starting to become a trademark of yours. Post inane things about stuff you don't understand.

You body doesn't suddenly stop healing itself, it slowly becomes less efficient at doing so the older you get. At some point, the damage incurred > the ability to recuperate. Also, any part of your body that's been injured is never what it used to be. You never heal completely.

Some tissues, like muscle and neural, cannot be repaired or regrown. You have what you have and that's it. Tearing a muscle is so devastating because it might take years to repair.

I don't think you understand the damage that your body takes every second of every day.

-TG

just because my wording is not always 100% correct you assume i have no knowledge about the random subjects you and your fellow non-believers pull out of their ass. slow process or not, there's still no explanation as to why it happens.

Some tissues, like muscle and neural, cannot be repaired or regrown

off course it can, it has done so in the womb before, why wouldn't it be able to do so outside of the womb?

I don't think you understand the damage that your body takes every second of every day.

i don't think you understand why the universe even exists

[Neoteny]

Ahaha

[TA1LGUNN3R]

off course it can, it has done so in the womb before, why wouldn't it be able to do so outside of the womb?

You really know how to push all the right buttons. Why do you think stem-cell research is so promising? The coupling of sperm and egg cell into a zygote, which goes through rapid growth and cell differentiation, is a finite period, growing in response to chemical markers in the womb environment. This type of growth is pretty unsustainable in most fully developed multicellular organisms, especially the higher order vertebrates.

For example, you know how starfish can regenerate lost limbs? It's because they're fairly simple, and don't require complex processes to stay alive. They have simple nervous systems. We can't say the same for ourselves. We are VERY complex.

i don't think you understand why the universe even exists

Well you're right there. Although my thoughts on the matter are that there isn't a why, it just is. I don't think there's any purpose to it, it's just a process.

-TG

[pmchugh]

however god did a lot of good for us by creating the earth and allowing us to live on it, and creating the perfect environment for us, creating a wild variation in color, scents, lifeforms, taste, etc. life would be much less fun if everything sounded the same, everything looked the same, everything tasted the same, etc. life would be possible like that, but it'd be hella boring. so if you are talking about THAT KIND of good, then obviously we're talking about god.

Would you call this the perfect environment? I wouldn't.

Most of this is not really to do with our debate. How can anyone be purely good or bad? Even the most wicked man sometimes performs acts of kindness? And no man is without sin. This is a grey scale, how can you split a grey scale fairly?

only god can judge that. i won't even try.

At any rate there must be a tipping point. One person who is ever so marginally "better" than another will have the completely opposite reward/punishment. I don't see how this can possibly be "perfectly" fair.

So there are situations in which taking sides in a war is right? Why can't Christians do that then as per your previous post?

we do chose a side, the side of god. but god is no longer bound to a physical nation, whereas in the past he was with the nation of Israel (not to be confused with current day Israel). we do not get involved in human political conflicts though. Why would Christians living in say Germany take up arms against Christians in Spain, just to name some random countries.

The only reason he was allied to Israel in the past was that Israel made up the Abrahamic God.. just saying.

i have read a lot in my life from different sources and authors, and i know both sides of the stories, i also read other religious books like the koran. but after all, i decided the bible is the most truthful of anything.

Really? I don't mean offense but I am surprised. What evolutionary supportive "sources" have you read? Also what did you think of the Koran, I got really bored and couldn't keep reading it.

and no, the earth is in no way less then 10,000 years old. probably not even less then 10 times that amount.

How do you reconcile this with the Biblical conclusion of James Ussher that it is 6000 years old?

[zimmah]

however god did a lot of good for us by creating the earth and allowing us to live on it, and creating the perfect environment for us, creating a wild variation in color, scents, lifeforms, taste, etc. life would be much less fun if everything sounded the same, everything looked the same, everything tasted the same, etc. life would be possible like that, but it'd be hella boring. so if you are talking about THAT KIND of good, then obviously we're talking about god.

Would you call this the perfect environment? I wouldn't.

what is wrong with earth?

as for the conclusion that earth is 6000 years old is quite bullshit. 6000 years of human civilization is much more accurate, but earth existed before humans. and long before humans existed other animals. this also prooves that the 6 days of creation are not literally 6 days.

as for the koran, i don't want to offend anyone but the koran is a poor rippoff of the bible and unlike the bible it does not have a structure or any conclusion. if you understand the bible well enough you know what god wants from you, but if you read the koran, well, you're still confused because the koran sais then A then B, and then C and none of them can be combined with each other in any way.

[patches70]

however god did a lot of good for us by creating the earth and allowing us to live on it, and creating the perfect environment for us, creating a wild variation in color, scents, lifeforms, taste, etc. life would be much less fun if everything sounded the same, everything looked the same, everything tasted the same, etc. life would be possible like that, but it'd be hella boring. so if you are talking about THAT KIND of good, then obviously we're talking about god.

Would you call this the perfect environment? I wouldn't.

what is wrong with earth?

The problem with Earth is that it is covered with Earthlings.....

[zimmah]

however god did a lot of good for us by creating the earth and allowing us to live on it, and creating the perfect environment for us, creating a wild variation in color, scents, lifeforms, taste, etc. life would be much less fun if everything sounded the same, everything looked the same, everything tasted the same, etc. life would be possible like that, but it'd be hella boring. so if you are talking about THAT KIND of good, then obviously we're talking about god.

Would you call this the perfect environment? I wouldn't.

what is wrong with earth?

The problem with Earth is that it is covered with Earthlings.....

that's not a problem caused by god but by the earthlings. really, what is wrong about the earth itself, which is not caused by humans.

[pmchugh]

however god did a lot of good for us by creating the earth and allowing us to live on it, and creating the perfect environment for us, creating a wild variation in color, scents, lifeforms, taste, etc. life would be much less fun if everything sounded the same, everything looked the same, everything tasted the same, etc. life would be possible like that, but it'd be hella boring. so if you are talking about THAT KIND of good, then obviously we're talking about god.

Would you call this the perfect environment? I wouldn't.

what is wrong with earth?

Natural disasters, predators and interaction with soulless creates that you may end up loving (gingers, dogs, cats etc. and no I don't mean that kind of "loving"), restrictions on my free will and the general unfair nature of it.

[patches70]

however god did a lot of good for us by creating the earth and allowing us to live on it, and creating the perfect environment for us, creating a wild variation in color, scents, lifeforms, taste, etc. life would be much less fun if everything sounded the same, everything looked the same, everything tasted the same, etc. life would be possible like that, but it'd be hella boring. so if you are talking about THAT KIND of good, then obviously we're talking about god.

Would you call this the perfect environment? I wouldn't.

what is wrong with earth?

The problem with Earth is that it is covered with Earthlings.....

that's not a problem caused by god but by the earthlings. really, what is wrong about the earth itself, which is not caused by humans.

You understand I was just making a joke, don't you? You remember the scene in Braveheart when the King Longshanks said "The problem with Scotland is that it's full of Scots! <people chuckle with the King>"?

[zimmah]

no, cuz i didn't see braveheart.

[zimmah]

however god did a lot of good for us by creating the earth and allowing us to live on it, and creating the perfect environment for us, creating a wild variation in color, scents, lifeforms, taste, etc. life would be much less fun if everything sounded the same, everything looked the same, everything tasted the same, etc. life would be possible like that, but it'd be hella boring. so if you are talking about THAT KIND of good, then obviously we're talking about god.

Would you call this the perfect environment? I wouldn't.

what is wrong with earth?

Natural disasters, predators and interaction with soulless creates that you may end up loving (gingers, dogs, cats etc. and no I don't mean that kind of "loving"), restrictions on my free will and the general unfair nature of it.

how natural are natural disasters, one may ask? and how bad would an earthquake really be, if we either did not build houses in earthquake-rich areas or if we made them, we made them earthquake-proof? we're able to create buildings strong enough to survive at least 8 or maybe even 9+ scale earthquakes, and how many times do those happen anyway?

how many humans get killed by predators, and how many of those times is it their own fault for getting dangerously close in the first place? i'll ignore the soulless part because that makes absolutely no sense.

restriction on free will? god does not restrict you to do anything. if anything, humans restrict you.

[Night Strike]

also, TRUE christians are not involved in wars. use your head dude, why would true christians, who believe in a heavenly government, even get involved in earthern politics? TRUE CHRISTIAN ARE STRICLY NEUTRAL! which means we do NOT vote, do NOT greet flags, do NOT support our country in wars, etc. (we DO pay taxes and DO obey the law though, however, the law of the bible is above any human law, so whenever the law tell us to do something that goes against the biblical laws, we will refuse EVEN if the result is prison or death penalty.) Earthen governments are only temporarily, but the kingdom of Jesus is everlasting.

Ummmm.......WHAT?! Why wouldn't Christians vote or participate in government?