Hypothetical 2 – Would you physically protect a church following 80% of the Law?

We’ll presume this demographic judgment is correct and do another hypothetical scenario:

I’m sure 95%+ of church attendees believe in Jesus and His resurrection.
But of those 95%+ I’d say 99.7% act contrary to Jesus’ own teachings, and 100% act contrary to Jehovah’s instructions and covenants in the Old Testament. Hence, weak Christians, happy to compromise and disobey for an easy life.

Jehovah tells is that if we obey His commands He will bless our nations, but if we ignore them He will subject us to all manner of horrors. Jesus tells us that many will claim to be followers and believers, but that He will never have known them, through their wrong actions, their disobedience and their hearts.

-glosoli
Comment on Hypothetical – would you physically protect a flawed church from an active shooter?


Let’s say you’re a new Christian looked far and wide for a church that follows the instructions and covenants in the Old Testament, and have found none in the West. But you can’t lead your own church because you’ve only been a Christian for a year and the Bible specifically prohibits novices from being leaders, elders, teachers (etc.): “He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil’s trap.” So you decide to look for a church outside the decadent West.

You hear about a promising church deep in the Caucasus, surrounded on all sides by Muslim heathens. They’re a remnant of an old Celtic tribe of warriors left over from the ancient Varangian guard, which has been mercilessly k-selected by self-sufficiency and attacks by European pagans, Muslim barbarians, and even an Asian conqueror or two. They adhere very closely to the Law as a matter of survival and keep almost all of the commandments. You decide to visit and see if there’s potential to move here and finally have fellowship with your brethren, as Jesus commanded.

However, when you arrive on the Sabbath day you are distressed to see about half the people are working frenetically, and only half are resting. Being a reasonable sort, you ask around for clarification. Maybe they keep the Sabbath on a different day of the week? No, they explain, they have come under great pressure from the local government and have been working Sabbaths for six months to prepare a last-minute legal case, and make preparations for war. Under this pressure, they have been neglecting some of the other Old Testament instructions as well. The neighbor villages have cut off all trade with them, so that they have been forced to kill and eat a herd of wild pigs, disobeying the Old Testament proscription against pork. Several of the children born during these six months have not been circumcised.

After half a week living among them, rumors circulate that the local magistrate has decided to “put an end to these troublesome Christians once and for all”. The rumors are effectively confirmed when a large armed government convoy is spotted on the road from the capital city, headed toward the town to wipe them out.

Will you take up a rifle in defense of these people? Is it moral to defend these lawbreakers? Is it not better to retreat and find another church which has not so obviously been condemned for their Sabbath-breaking? (Surely the historical r/k cycle will put all things right.) How much personal risk is permissible, in tactical and moral terms? Is it preferable to preach to them about how God will save them from the threat if only they will return to perfect adherence to the Law?

And most importantly, how much of the Law must they keep before they are worthy of your material assistance? 80%? 95%? 99.9%?

About Aeoli Pera

Maybe do this later?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

36 Responses to Hypothetical 2 – Would you physically protect a church following 80% of the Law?

  1. Aton says:

    Taking all the Old Testament proscriptions so seriously must be a weird, Protestant thing.

    Here is a rule of thumb: if you want to have friends you shouldn’t inquire too deeply into their affairs, lest ye be disappointed. Anyone with a talent for friendship know this instinctively. This is especially true if you’re a judgmental type lacking in self-criticism and introspection.

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      >Taking all the Old Testament proscriptions so seriously must be a weird, Protestant thing.

      It’s older than that.

    • lflick says:

      Kind of — AFAICT, around these parts, this attitude toward the OT comes via Rushdoony, who began as an Armenian Presbyterian. Protestant missionaries brought the Reformation to Armenians in like the 19th century, which must be when Rushdoony’s family came down with it.

      Of course the Jews have been at it for longer.

      • Aeoli Pera says:

        “Trust a snake before you trust a Jew, trust a Jew before you trust a Greek, and never trust an Armenian.”

      • glosoli says:

        ‘….this attitude toward the OT’

        What, the attitude of reading it and doing what it tells us? Bite me.

        Not surprising to see Aeoli agreeing with a woman of whom I’ve heard some interesting tales, none of which are….righteous.

        Not surprising to see her appear out of the woodwork to challenge the authority of God either, who was it in the bible did that? Ah yes, Eve was her name.

    • glosoli says:

      I’d stay put and form my own church, and draft in a guy I trust to lead it until such time as I could do so myself.

      As for the caucus group:

      ‘They adhere very closely to the Law as a matter of survival and keep almost all of the commandments.’

      Yeah, that’s not going to lead them to be blessed by Jehovah, so they have trouble coming. Good hypothetical scenario Aeoli.

      I encourage anyone interested in this subject to spend 7 minutes 28 seconds listening very carefully to God talking about His laws, commands and statutes, and the implications of following them, or ignoring them in this chapter, you may be somewhat surprised:

      [audio src="http://earnestlycontendingforthefaith.com/King%20James%20Bible%20Audio/Leviticus%2026.mp3" /]

      Aeoli, you will hear the explanation in that verse for why your roads are so bad.

      I may be a new Christian (well, it’s coming up for two years now), but I have already accepted our nations’ terrible sins, and our nations turning away from God and His laws. So, we will suffer His just wrath now, it’ll be terrible.

      I’ll plant the seed of faith and obedience to God in due course in my church, and have faith that God will see that, and will be pleased. Maybe His mercy will spare a few of us, to rebuild a nation with which He would be please (no Churchians or girl leaders allowed).

      My book will aim to clarify, for those confused (like Aeoli), which of the Old Testament laws and statutes no longer apply, following Christ’s time with us. Many no longer apply (such as animal sacrifices) thanks to Jesus’ sacrifice.

      • Aton says:

        Out of pure curiosity, do you believe in the Triune God? Do you accept the Niceno–Constantinopolitan Creed?

        • glosoli says:

          I’ve just read it. It seems OK, but I know Revelation refers to seven churches.

          I’m more interested in the authority of the bible than proclamations from Roman Emperors though.

          • Aton says:

            It wasn’t a proclamation of a Roman Emperor but rather the consensus of an ecumenical counsel of bishops guided by the Holy Spirit.

            • glosoli says:

              Right.

            • Aton says:

              You say that sarcastically as if it’s a matter of debate. Any reason?

            • glosoli says:

              I have no interest in a squabble with a catholic.

            • Aton says:

              Eastern Orthodox, but anyway. It’s ridiculous how confident you are in your fringe, DIY version of Christianity whenyou appear to be totally ignorant of at least the first thousand years of the Church, a Church which wrote the Bible you idolize (it didn’t fall from the sky).

              The fact that you think the Creed was written by a Roman Emperor is not smart.

            • glosoli says:

              Was it Constantine’s wife who supposedly found the cross, and it brought some guys back to life? I think she got that bit wrong, but she’s a woman.
              Apparently she’s more Holy than all of the Apostles though.
              Nothing to do with hubby!
              Heh.

          • Aton says:

            I’m gonna assume your IQ is so far above mine that there is a communication gap, because I have no idea what point you’re trying to make with your last comment.

  2. bicebicebcie says:

    But… itz lawful to do good on the sabbat! Its literally in the bibble. Then there are commandments greather than the others. Learb arameic, hebrew and greek, lost and removed content must also be read in original language. This is a task for a lifetime, and, hypothetically speaking, which archaic texts are autistically indexed according to scientifically designated atuism. Some passages maybe, but the whole works? I doubt it.

    “Caution Ahead, BiceBiceBice 5:13-16 is written in Woox9000”

    Church can literally never be perfect because it involves groups of people which are imperfect which is why conceptual religion and god xirself exists in the first place probably maybe. The opposite must be satanic worship of the godlike perfect man. If a gunman was ambushing a swedish church I would gladly help him because again sapes ooga booging under the cross i know they are not sincere and just planning their next diddling sodomite parade, so why not? If a gunman was ambushing a 80% and climbing aspiring church I would help them, even if the church was 1% and climbing. God nine-eleved sodom&gomorrah just saying.

    *SPECULATION TERRITORY* if a city was brimmed with hot stones people would shart themselves but if it was in the guise of a gunman detonating a nuke well thats just part and parcel of big city life. But it was still God ximself behind it..! The perfect crime, nobody would suspect God.

    Is effort churching effort posting?

    “Taking all the Old Testament proscriptions so seriously must be a weird, Protestant thing.

    Here is a rule of thumb: if you want to have friends you shouldn’t inquire too deeply into their affairs, lest ye be disappointed. Anyone with a talent for friendship know this instinctively. This is especially true if you’re a judgmental type lacking in self-criticism and introspection.”

    Reminds me of that time the newly converted swedes (we were catholic then) colonized finland for 600(800) years so they could partake in the holy gospel, which those pesky savages desperately were in need of a, dose of good behavior for their own good from pious men who dindunuffin and never dinded!
    In the end it worked out pretty well all things considered and still to this day we are sort of best friends.

  3. Hurdhurd says:

    I am a complete ignorant in such matters, but I am pretty sure Jesus himself said that working in the sabbath was permisdible (the sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath). Also I’m prety sure he said somewhere that you can eat anything you want. The NT is much more practical than the OT. One of the main things Jesus criticized was the excessive legalism of the phariseeez, keeping not the spirit of the law but just obsessing over its minor details.

    • glosoli says:

      Read the bible to relieve your ignorance.
      Jesus did not say it was OK to work on the Sabbath, rather that to do good works was fine, to heal, or if an emergency necessitated it.
      You are correct about the Pharisees, they were also hypocrites, as they did not keep the law themselves. (Matthew 23).
      He did confirm that it’s not what you eat that makes you a sinner.
      I don’t eat pork or shrimp because God advised us not to. Modern scientific research tends to confirm why: these animals eat shit and don’t process it properly. Hence, loads of health troubles in Europe from pork produce.
      That’s not a law issue, rather sound advice from Jehovah.
      The Old Testament is very practical indeed, and covers so many different scenarios, whereas the New Testament cover only Jesus’ specific mission to sacrifice Himself to save us. Both need to be read and understood. The laws and commands of God are the common thread running through it all, of course, they’re from God, unchanging, perfect, eternal.

  4. Milk says:

    They eat pork? They don’t keep the Sabbath? Forget about defending them; fucking kill them all.

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      That’s a pretty good summary of the belief system I’m addressing.

      • glosoli says:

        I’m smiling, as I remember the end of of our last Skype, when we were discussing the hypothetical restaurant in a society run under Jehovah’s laws.

        You remember the conclusion you reached? And I said I was pleased, and meant it genuinely.

        No one is suggesting killing Churchians in a society where we’re under judgement and don’t have that power anyway. Jehovah will allow them to suffer an appropriate fate for their turning away.

  5. Milk says:

    Anyway. Here’s a take:

    Koanic and Aeoli call God “Jehova” because it sound more tribal and militaristic, less abstract and universal than “God”.

    It’s basically LARPing.

    The KJV is favored because it lends a Game of Thrones-esque air to it all.

    The Old Testament fetishism makes polygamy seem more plausible. Suddenly licentiousness assumes the air of a moral imperative.

    Koanic once said in his old blog that his mission is “1. to serve God and 2. to fuck beautiful women.”

    Which, you know, fucking lol.

    Truth is of course being allowed to have several wives would be sweet. I’m as horny and appreciative of the fair sex as the next guy. But I’m honest enough with myself to realize I don’t get to create a new makeshift sect to satisfy my fantasies.

    (That said. I love you guys. I’m as lost as you are. And I’m trying to improve myself and find a direction, which is why I’m posting here.)

  6. Gabriel Lorca says:

    The mere fact that you have to ask either of these questions goes to show that you are not prepared for this event in the first place. The real questions you need to be asking are:

    Where do you sit in the pew arrangement to ensure you have a clear shot?
    Will the shooter go for the priest first or the congregation?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s