Evangelical Views - the Best of UseNet Religious Postings! :: View topic - The God Who Raised Jesus From The Dead <4> Acts 5:26-32

server · Guest

message unavailable

++ · Guest

Al Green wrote:

++ · Guest

digimortal wrote:

Rowland Croucher · Guest

From: FreedomNowNews@aol.com
Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2003 11:08 PM
Subject: Indonesia: Justice is Defeated

INDONESIA: JUSTICE IS DEFEATED
Humanitarian Worker Gets Three Years

June 16, 2003
Jubilee Campaign

The trial court in Palu, Indonesia sentenced Reverend Rinaldy Damanik to
three years. In ruling on the dubious weapons possession charge, the
court disregarded the testimony of the prosecution's crown witness but said
they could not disregard the hand-made guns allegedly confiscated by the
police.

"Today justice was defeated," said Ann Buwalda, USA Director of Jubilee
Campaign. "An innocent man has been convicted, the Christian people of
Central Sulawesi has have been vilified, and the evil men who engineered
the conflict and Damanik's trial have won. This ruling is a blight on
individual rights and the Rule of Law in Indonesia."

During the bloody religious conflict that devastated Central Sulawesi
beginning in 1998, Damanik and his GKST Refugee Crisis Center earned a
reputation for aiding victims of violence, both Christian and Muslim
alike. In August 2002, Damanik and his team were evacuating Christians
from a village that had recently been attacked when their caravan was
stopped by an angry Muslim mob. In an apparent attempt to placate the mob,
the police who arrived made a show of searching the caravan. The next day,
much to everyone's surprise, the police announced that the search had
netted illegal weapons.

The Judges were basing their verdict on what they refered as moral and
social justice aspects, and material evidence. The judges never gave any
clear explanation or definition to the court of what moral and social
justice mean. Based on the culture of justice and several previous cases
in Indonesia, moral and social justice could mean street riots engineered
and sponsored by those who have engineered the Poso conflict. The judges
upon considering the elements of "moral and social justice" have killed
justice itself, and have violated rights of a citizen, a very good and
loyal citizen, whose rights should be protected under the law.

In regard to the material evidence, based on the court testimonies, it
should be clear that all the material evidence had been seriously
tampered. For that reason alone, there should not be any material evidence
used to base such a verdict. On August, 17, 2002, at Peleru village the
search was conducted without a warrant and, contrary to police procedure,
Damanik was not appraised of the results of the search. Furthermore, the
police signatures on the indictment (BAP) against Damanik could not be
confirmed. In court, Officer Muhammad Umar Aihunan, whose signature
appeared on the document, denied signing it. The other signature was
illegible.

Even though the judges acknowledged the procedural errors done by the
police during the search, they explained that police in Peleru were for
security purposes and not for law enforcement. By claiming that rationale,
the judges have simply redefined police roles. In the meantime, Poso was
not under any kind of state of emergency. Therefore, police should have
followed procedure in order to protect rights of individual citizen.

The judges have acted very irresponsible. The judges ignored testimonies
of those, including Mr. Taswin a car shop owner, who testified that the
blue Kijang DN790E was in a shop for a serious repair. Rather the judges
accepted inconsistent testimonies by witnesses who seemed to remember very
well the license plate DN790E, and could not remember license plate of any
other vehicles in the caravan that day. Even more disturbing when some
witnesses and according to Damanik's own confession that the vehicle
Damanik was in not a blue Kijang, rather a black Kijang.

Sahetepy, an emeritus professor of law at Airlangga University and member
of the Indonesian Parliament (DPR), testified that Damanik was being framed
by the police and, in such cases, police procedures should be thoroughly
scrutinized.

By victimizing and scapegoating Damanik, the engineers of Poso conflict
have only one thing in mind, that is to further marginalized the Christians
as a way of "dividing and conquering" the people of Central Sulawesi, so
that they could further exploit the region. However, the people of Central
Sulawesi have understood the agenda of those evil people, and they have
committed to strive for peace and rehabilitation in the region.

Today's ruling is a clear indication that democracy and civil society in
Indonesia are taking several steps back. The chief judge, Mr. I Nyoman
Somanada, and his colleagues have betrayed democracy and
justice. Tomorrow, June 17, 2003, the defense lawyers will file an appeal
to the High Court.

Jubilee Campaign has closely followed Damanik's case since its
inception. We currently have a staff person on the ground in Palu and will
shortly be running an extended story with excerpts from the Court ruling.

Freedom Now News
http://freeworldnow.com/

--

Shalom!

Rowland Croucher

http://www.pastornet.net.au/jmm/index.htm
(Now 10,100 + articles!)

Andrew · Guest

"brian" wrote:

Tom A. · Guest

Andrew wrote:

Ruth Rush · Guest

Jun 21, 2003, 1:27pm (EDT-3) From: shmogie1@webtv.net
(Lamarr Edwards)
Ruth - The Gospel MUST come first, all else is secondary to it.
[Lamarr]
:::::::::::::::::::::::::;;;;;

What did you think I said?
Ruth
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

[Lamarr]
A justified faithful Christian, will reflect Gods will for them.
Many may be keeping the only binding law, love God, and love your
neighbor, right now.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;

I disagree that first of all this is "one" Law and second of all that
these are the only Law(s) of God that we are to keep.
When Yeshua said that the most important commandment was Deut. 6:5, to
love the Lord your God with all your, heart, soul and strength, did this
mean that we should or should not listen to all the commands He has for
us? The Law even states that you are to love the LORD your God. If He
is your Lord, what does that mean? Your Lord is someone you obey, your
ruler or master.
Ruth
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::;

[Lamarr]
Many will, as time goes by, and God desires it, will expand their
understanding, and thus their behavior in relation to the binding law.
LE

James Hajicek · Guest

I wrote:

The definition of the New Testament word "fornication"
cannot be obtained from an English dictionary, but it must
be learned from the meaning of the original Greek word
"porneia". This word is frequently used in the New
Testament, but not in such a way that its meaning can be
inferred from the usage. But it is related to the Greek
word "porne", which is translated in the KJV as "harlot" 8
times and as "whore" 4 times. Some of these usages leave no
doubt that the meaning is that of a "prostitute". Another
related Greek word "pornos" is translated as "fornicator" 5
times and as "whoremonger" 5 times. Therefore, the Greek
word "porneia" means "prostitution".

Alan M replied:

The meaning of "fornication" certainly can be obtained from
the English dictionary. Even if "fornication" is derived
from a Greek word, the English meaning needs to be used to
have a widely understood message. The meaning of the word
may have changed over time. The same would be true of many
words. People aren't going to research the history of
language to work out the meaning of a simple sentence.

If you want to know what the Bible REALLY says, then there are times
in which you have no choice but to do your research. This is one of
them. There are no perfectly reliable translations. Either learn
Hebrew and Greek, and learn them until you are perfectly fluent, or
else pay close attention when someone points out a translation
problem.

The English word "fornication" when used in normal conversation can be
obtained from an English dictionary. Yes, the definition changes over
time. That is one of Satan's tricks to obsolete the scripture and to
confuse its meaning.

Note that the English word "fornicate" has the root "forn", and that
this is merely a pronunciation variation of the Greek root "porn". It
would be interesting to know exactly what "fornication" meant in 1611
AD when it was used in the KJV.

In any case, the meaning of the Bible does NOT change over time. The
meaning of the Bible word "porneia" must be determined from the
original Greek language, which is what I outlined by comparison with
other words which use the same root.

If the English meaning of a word becomes different than the Biblical
meaning of a word, there are several choices:

1. Make a new English translation of the Bible. So far that has been
an utter failure because the new translations have a sectarian bias,
and they STILL translate "porneia" as "fornication" or as something
even less accurate. And they bungle other portions of the translation
far worse than the KJV does.

2. Teach people the correct, Biblical definition of "fornication",
not the Webster definition, and get enough people back to reading the
Bible, so that the English language usage of the English word
"fornication" eventually drifts toward the Biblical definition. Then
someday change the English dictionaries.

3. As an temporary measure, every time you refer to a Bible verse
which uses the word "fornication", put the correct definition in
parentheses. This is what I did in the first place. I wrote:

Incredible! Perhaps Lamarr also thinks that fornication
(which means prostitution) should be "avoided".

----------

There is another issue which is more difficult. The problem is in
trying to understand what Jesus really meant in verses like this:

Matthew 5:31-32
31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife,
let him give her a writing of divorcement:
32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his
wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to
commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is
divorced committeth adultery.

Matthew 19:8-9
8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your
hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the
beginning it was not so.
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife,
except it be for fornication, and shall marry another,
committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put
away doth commit adultery.

These verses are translations from Hebrew, or possibly Aramaic, into
Greek. They may or may not be translated correctly.

The question is whether or not a wife really had to become so wicked
that she was guilty of "prostitution" before she could be divorced.

That her sin had to be very great is suggested by the next verse:

Matthew 19:10
10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so
with his wife, it is not good to marry.

However, another possibility is that Jesus meant "fornication" to
refer to any physical act of "adultery". But Jesus' had expanded the
meaning of the word "adultery" to include even the thought:

Matthew 5:27-28
27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou
shalt not commit adultery:
28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to
lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in
his heart.

If Jesus had said that a woman could not be divorced unless she were
guilty of "adultery", then a man could divorce his wife if she merely
looked at another man. That was not his intention. He was trying to
make divorce more difficult than it was in the Law of Moses.

The Law of Moses permitted a man to divorce his wife without the need
for a decision by a judge. He merely needed to give her a certificate
stating that he had abandoned her:

Deuteronomy 24:1
1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it
come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he
hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a
bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her
out of his house.
2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and
be another man's wife.

So perhaps Jesus used some Hebrew word which implied PHYSICAL
adultery, rather than the mere thought of adultery. Then that word
was translated badly into Greek as "porneia".

This complicates the problem of what the word "fornication" is
supposed to mean. But I think that the solution to the problem is not
more and more different translations of the Bible, but rather Bibles
with good marginal notes.

----------

I have an opportunity here to mention another interesting issue.

Jesus said:

Matthew 19:8
8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your
hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the
beginning it was not so.

Note the words "from the beginning". This is a clear reference to the
pre-Mosaic laws on sex and marriage. Jesus must have known what these
were. I think that Jesus' teaching on divorce was intended as
preparation for what would be permitted after the Law of Moses was
ended, not a new law on divorce, but a portion of the pre-Mosaic law.

If we knew what these pre-Mosaic laws were, correctly translated, it
would help to explain many things. It would clarify the laws on
divorce, it would clarify Acts 15:29, and it would probably clarify
exactly what a couple is allowed to do during courtship.

- James

James Hajicek · Guest

Lamarr Edwards wrote:

James - You seem to believe that you have been given the
power to judge others.

I would suggest that you have no responsibility here,
judgement is Gods alone, and he judges what you cannot see,
a persons heart.

Whenever someone is exposed, someone who is teaching wrongly, they
bring this up in an attempt to conceal their manifest error.

First, the word "judge" means to PUNISH someone for a crime. It means
to impose a penalty, for example a legal punishment. Stoning someone
to death would be "judging" them. But merely telling someone that
they are doing something wrong, or that they are teaching something
wrong, is NOT "judging" them.

Second, I am not complaining about what is in Lamarr's heart, so much
as I am complaining about what Lamarr is SAYING and what EFFECT that
has on otherwise innocent people. I wrote:

But what you say has the effect of continually tempting and
enticing people into sin by claiming that obedience to God
is unnecessary for salvation.

I did not say that Lamarr was DELIBERATELY "tempting and enticing".
However, the things that Lamarr says certainly do have that EFFECT.
People are being confused and misled into thinking that they can get
away with shoplifting and adultery and still be saved.

It is not merely Lamarr, and it is not merely this newsgroup, the
"salvation by faith alone" people are pushing their doctrine on every
religious newsgroup.

----------

Lamarr continued:

One cannot have true faith without repentance.

How could someone have faith in he who atoned for, and
forgave their sins, if they have never repented and asked
for forgiveness ?

There is no TRUE repentance until: (1) you accept the Biblical
definition of sin, 1 John 3:4, (2) you resolve to learn what the laws
of God are in this age of the world, and (3) you resolve to never
again deliberately break any of God's laws.

On June 21, 2003, in this thread, Lamarr wrote to Ruth Rush:

Many may be keeping the only binding law, love God, and love
your neighbor, right now.

As long as people think that these are the only two BINDING laws, they
incapable of true repentance. What Lamarr SAYS is robbing people of
salvation.

Jesus said that those two commandments were the two MOST IMPORTANT
commandments. He did NOT say that they were the ONLY ones. He listed
others as well:

Matthew 19:17-19
17 ... if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
18 ... Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit
adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false
witness,
19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love
thy neighbour as thyself.

----------

I asked:

What EXACTLY are you referring to as "jumping though hoops",
which you claim "brings nothing"?

Lamarr replied:

ANYTHING you do, to make God like you, more, love you, more,
or save you, is jumping through hoops, and worthless for
what you think you are doing it for.

Gods love, and salvation, are absolute and completely FREE
gifts. There is nothing you can do to earn them, for if
there was, you would not have needed Jesus to earn them for
you.

A "FREE gift" can be freely taken away again if the recipient proves
to be unworthy of the gift.

I think that Lamarr is evading my question. I want to know EXACTLY
which of the commandments Lamarr thinks people keep in such a way that
they are "jumping through hoops".

Whatever it is, by saying that it is "worthless for what you think you
are doing it for", Lamarr's words have the EFFECT of luring and
beguiling people to stop keeping that commandment.

Lamarr does not want me to guess what is in his heart. I will leave
it for other people to decide for themselves.

----------

On June 19, 2003, in this thread, Lamarr wrote:

Salvation is totally, completely, and thoroughly by faith,
period.

That is called the doctrine of "salvation by faith alone".

The apostle Paul did NOT teach "salvation by faith alone". He taught
"justification by faith without the law". For example:

Romans 3:28
28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith
without the deeds of the law.

Galatians 2:16
16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the
law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed
in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of
Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of
the law shall no flesh be justified.

First, "justification" in only one part of what is required for
"salvation". It refers only to the atonement for sins.

Second, "faith without the law" is NOT the same thing as "faith
alone". Even if the animal sacrifices in the Law of Moses are no
longer required for the atonement, the Ten Commandments remains in
effect to define sin.

Third, in the law of Moses, atonement by animal sacrifices was only
for sins committed in "ignorance", Leviticus 5:17-18, Numbers
15:27-29. Deliberate sins were NOT forgiven, Numbers 15:30-31. In
the new covenant, atonement covers all sins, whether deliberate or
not, committed before our conversion, and all new sins committed in
ignorance or in human weakness. But new deliberate sins are STILL NOT
forgiven, Hebrews 10:26-27.

- James

Andrew · Guest

"Tom A." wrote:

Andrew · Guest

"Harold Kupp" wrote:

Tom A. · Guest

Andrew wrote:

Guest · Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2003 3:09 am Post subject: Re: I Need a bible

On Sat, 17 May 2003 19:34:53 +0100, "Topnet Trev"
<trevor.prior@topnet-shop.com> wrote:

digimortal · Guest

Is the Father God or just God?

"David' Chariot" <David_Chariot@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3EF6EBB6.58DBFFC@hotmail.com...

Thomas · Guest

On 23 Jun 2003 14:40:25 -0700, darylshawn@hotmail.com (Daryl Shawn)
wrote:

I will not avenge myself by goink on a


www.evangelicalview.com Leading Religious, News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Evangelical Views - the Best of UseNet Religious Postings! Forum Index -> Christian Adventist Forum	Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 82, 83, 84 Next
Page 1 of 84