Originally Posted by
Natural Citizen
I don't think that means what you think it does. The part I boldened there, I mean. That's just me talking, though, Theo.
Here is what I would do. If it were me. Which it isn't. But if it were, I'd read that scripture and compare it to what you led into it with (again, what I boldened there). Think about it, man. I mean reaaaaaally think about what you say here in context with the actual scripture.
It seems to me that "some" and "we" are mutually exclusive to one another in the context of the scripture itself. And for good reason.
If I recall right, God wouldn't even let Israel have horses. Or am I wrong about that? Am I wrong, Theo?
Let's review. Maybe I'm wrong.
"But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the Lord hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way" (Deut. 17:16).
So, then, it seems to me that God is saying to have faith in Him alone. I mean, sht, Theo, He specifically took their danged horses and weapons away. Right? Or naw? Did he let em have their horses and whatnot and maybe I missed that part? You just got done quoting that..."Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the Lord our God. (Ps. 20:7-8)...which actually continues...although, you stopped prior to..."They are brought down and fallen: but we are risen, and stand upright."
But God forbid the Israelites from having horses. God wanted Israel to trust in Him, not horses and chariots.
So, yeah. I think that your thought leading into the scripture that you referenced actually contradicts the scripture itself, Theo. It seems to me that if people put their faith in their chariots, then, they are effectively placing their faith in man. In man's enginuity. Not God.
“Some trust in chariots” (Ps. 20:7). Right?
Ultimately, and with all of that said, the discussion (per the topic specifically and particularly the context of your question to pcosmar about if he has a gun or not when you were making a case for moral judgment to be made by the police/government) should move in the direction of just who is the moral authority. Is it Man-over-God or God-over-Man? The way you led into that scripture that you referenced would tend to stimulate a Man-over-God scenario. God doesn't use worldly weapons. Man does. Man builds them. And man is confident in his weapons. Now, God did breath life into the horse. I'll grant you that. But God didn't saddle the feller up and hop on it with a sword and a flag or whatever. Man did that. These are specifically made mutually exclusive in the scripture you posted to support your claim.
If I'm wrong, then, please educate me. I like to learn. It's one of my favorite things to do, man. Thanks!
Connect With Us