God's proxy (salvation, translation, Isaiah, Holy Spirit)

[Magnolia Bloom]

I am a mid-level manager. There are times that I have my boss's proxy to speak for her. But I'm not given carte blanche. Although there is a personnel manual, the bottom line in interpreting it's meaning falls with HR.

So how is it that some feel that they have God's proxy to interpret the bible? To be the judge and jury for God? What demonination is it that has been given this authority by God? To interpret a document that has been translated multiple times, in myriad languages and editions? What a powerful responsiblity that must me. How does one get to speak for God?

[Marks]

Your use of the term proxy is like saying a vicar; we are neither although, both mean almost the same thing. We're not called to be a substitute for God. We are; however, called to witness for Him. This simply means repeating what He has already spoken through His word.

The world and the sinful lives of people are complicated, and without the moral compass of the Holy Scriptures it would be plunged into chaos. Which I fear is soon to come upon us. Moreover, God can and often does speak to His servants, and we are to "proclaim it from the housetops."

Measure the servant of God's life, their witness, their testimony of their encounter with Him, and that speaks volumes. A sad fact today is people do not respect the messengers of God anymore.

To sad.

[Magnolia Bloom]

I think you've confused the word "witness" with juror. A witness doesn't change what they are seeing, they just see it. They WITNESS it. It is a juror who places judgement on others. And testimony doesn't place judgement. It's a relay of information.

You are a mesenger of God?! The thought creeps me out.

Originally Posted by Marks

Your use of the term proxy is like saying a vicar; we are neither although, both mean almost the same thing. We're not called to be a substitute for God. We are; however, called to witness for Him. This simply means repeating what He has already spoken through His word.

The world and the sinful lives of people are complicated, and without the moral compass of the Holy Scriptures it would be plunged into chaos. Which I fear is soon to come upon us. Moreover, God can and often does speak to His servants, and we are to "proclaim it from the housetops."

Measure the servant of God's life, their witness, their testimony of their encounter with Him, and that speaks volumes. A sad fact today is people do not respect the messengers of God anymore.

To sad.

[Miss Blue]

The basis of the bible has not changed through translation. How many ways can these things be translated? God, creation,ten commandments, prayer, Jesus, love, death, burial, resurrection, eternal life. I have not heard any christians ever argue these or refute the translation. IMO these are the basics of the christian faith. I have never heard christians disagree on these points. God made sure not to leave room for his children not to understand these basics

[FL_TN_Nana]

We believe that God truly calls some Christians into the ministry (there are many ministries -- pastor, evangelist, teacher, missionary, etc.). A preacher (pastor, evangelist, some missionaries) have a special gift for proclaiming the gospel (preaching)-- given to them at salvation. (1 Cor. 12:4-11, Romans 12:3-8) The Holy Spirit abides in those who have been saved and provides guidance. Those who are called to preach depend upon the Holy Spirit's guidance, through much prayer, to be able to learn and speak the truth from the Bible.

Yes, it is an awesome responsibility. But how else shall people hear the gospel?

Romans 10:15: And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace, Who bring glad tidings of good things!" (Quoting from Isaiah 52:7)

[DeLaSalle]

The actus reus — sometimes called the external elements of a crime — is the Latin term for the "guilty act" which, when proved beyond a reasonable doubt in combination with the mens rea, i.e., the "guilty mind", produces criminal liability in common law-based criminal law jurisdictions Canada, New Zealand, England, Scotland and the United States. In the United States, some crimes also require proof of an attendant circumstance.

[DeLaSalle]

MPC §1.13(9)(a)/(c)
In United States v. Apfelbaum, 445 U.S. 115, 131 (1980)[1], Rehnquist J. states the general rule that:

In the criminal law, both a culpable mens rea and a criminal actus reus are generally required for an offense to occur.
For these purposes, the term "actus reus" does not have a single definition, but it represents the general principle that before an individual may be convicted of an offense, it must be shown that there was an overt act in pursuance of any intention. Otherwise, a person might be held liable for his or her thoughts alone. Model Penal Code §2.01(1):

A person is not guilty of an offense unless his liability is based on conduct which includes a voluntary act or the omission to perform an act of which he is physically capable.
But there are exceptions. For example, according to United States v. Dozal, 173 F.3d 787, 797 (10th Cir. 1999) a conspiracy in violation of 21 U.S.C. §846 consists of four elements:

an agreement with another person to violate the law,
knowledge of the essential objectives of the conspiracy,
knowing and voluntary involvement, and
interdependence among the alleged conspirators.
But, according to United States v. Johnson, 42 F.3d 1312, 1319 (10th Cir. 1994) (citing United States v. Shabani, 513 U.S. 10 (1994)) drug conspiracies under 21 U.S.C. §846 are unique because the prosecution need not prove an overt act. Instead, the government must "prove that the defendant knew at least the essential objectives of the conspiracy and knowingly and voluntarily became a part of it." Consequently, withdrawal before an overt act has been committed cannot relieve a defendant of criminal responsibility. The policies that justify drug enforcement laws require this exception so that anyone who deliberately acquires knowledge of drug-related activities and thereby represents a social danger, may be convicted.

When analysing an offense, the normal rules of interpretation require the identification of the policies that informed the creation of the offense, an assessment of the factual context within which the offense must be committed and the consequences prohibited by the law. Thus, as the MPC §1.13(9) definition indicates, the attendant circumstances will be the evidence that must be adduced to prove all the elements required to constitute the offense and, under §1.13(9)(c) to disprove any excuse or justification. So, as in State of North Carolina v Vernon Jay Raley 155 NC App 222 (01-1004)[2], if a citizen intentionally utters a profanity at the police, the charges would be preferred under N.C.G.S. §14-288.4 which defines "disorderly conduct" as:

a public disturbance intentionally caused by a person who:
(1) Engages in fighting or other violent conduct or in conduct creating the threat of imminent fighting or violence; or
(2) makes or uses any utterance, gesture, display or abusive language which is intended and plainly likely to provoke violent retaliation and thereby causes a breach of the peace.
Under N.C.G.S. §14-288.4 (2001). the component element of “public disturbance” is defined in G.S. §14-288.1(8) as follows:

Any annoying, disturbing, or alarming act or condition exceeding the bounds of social toleration normal for the time and place in question which occurs in a public place or which occurs in, affects persons in, or is likely to affect persons in a place to which the public or a substantial group has access. The places covered by this definition shall include, but not be limited to, highways, transport facilities, schools, prisons, apartment houses, places of business or amusement, or any neighborhood.
In order for a person to be found guilty of this crime, the evidence must prove that the defendant uttered a profanity (the act) in a public place (the contextual attendant circumstance) with the intention of provoking a violent reaction (the mental element demonstrating the right type of culpability) and thereby causes a breach of the peace (the result prohibited by law). There are no attendant circumstances that might invoke an excuse or other general defence. Indeed, the fact that, in this instance, the victim was a police officer would probably increase the penalty for the crime and, as such, it is known as an aggravating circumstance; (when verification of an attendant circumstance decreases the penalty, it is known as a mitigating or extenuating circumstance).

[Magnolia Bloom]

The only person who truly speaks for God is Charles Meade. The rest are frauds.