1776 & Liberation Theology

[Danfrey]

It wasn't available to people in Biblical times or to early Christians. Their only choices were to submit or rebel. We in this century have other choices.

Did Roman citizens like Paul have an opportunity to participate in the government by voting? Are you claiming that none of the Governments that the early Christians lived under allowed citizen influence or participation? I seem to recall one of the early writings addressed to a leader asking them to stop persecuting christians, I guess this could be considered a form of influencing the government.

I assume that because early Christians didn't drive cars, use telephones or shop in grocery stores, you are opposed to doing those, too?

Government did exist during the time of the Early Christians, therefore we can make a comparison of their response to government and ours.

 

[ZiSunka]

Did Roman citizens like Paul have an opportunity to participate in the government by voting?

No. As a person born outside of Rome, he did not possess the right to vote. Only those people born and actively living inside had the right to vote (three years of latin class finally pay off! ) All government and laws came from Rome and was created by Romans. Those citizens who were born outside of Rome had rights, but the right to vote was not among them. There were no naturalizations and no absentee ballots.

I seem to recall one of the early writings addressed to a leader asking them to stop persecuting christians, I guess this could be considered a form of influencing the government.

You are quite a contradiciton of doctrines! First you say that you would not attempt to influence gevernment because the early Christians didn't attempt to influence their governments, then you say the early Christians wrote to their governors in an attempt to influence the government.

Government did exist during the time of the Early Christians, therefore we can make a comparison of their response to government and ours.

Yes, a very different form of government in which the average person had no authority or voice. We don't have that excuse today.

 

[Danfrey]

You are quite a contradiciton of doctrines! First you say that you would not attempt to influence gevernment because the early Christians didn't attempt to influence their governments, then you say the early Christians wrote to their governors in an attempt to influence the government.

This is not a contradiction, this is called honesty. As I was typing my post, I recalled something I read from one of the early writers addressed to a leader asking that they not persecute christians. I am not afraid to admit that I don't always have all the answers. In the same way I would not knock someone for writing to Bush asking him to end the war, but I still believe that citizens of the heavenly kingdom should not participate in the governments of this world. I guess I could live with a nice letter asking them to do the right thing though.

 

[ZiSunka]

This is not a contradiction, this is called honesty. As I was typing my post, I recalled something I read from one of the early writers addressed to a leader asking that they not persecute christians. I am not afraid to admit that I don't always have all the answers. In the same way I would not knock someone for writing to Bush asking him to end the war, but I still believe that citizens of the heavenly kingdom should not participate in the governments of this world. I guess I could live with a nice letter asking them to do the right thing though.

So you will start doing that then?

Here's his email address:

president@whitehouse.gov

 

[MrJim]

So you will start doing that then?

Here's his email address:

president@whitehouse.gov

<Secret Service agents if ya don't write the letter nicely

 

[Danfrey]

So you will start doing that then?

Here's his email address:

president@whitehouse.gov

I said I wouldn't knock someone for doing it. I never said I planned to do it. I made my statement to the government in a three page letter detailing why I was a contientious objector. That is the last letter I plan to address to any government official.

 

[ZiSunka]

I said I wouldn't knock someone for doing it. I never said I planned to do it. I made my statement to the government in a three page letter detailing why I was a contientious objector. That is the last letter I plan to address to any government official.

hmm...

 

[MrJim]

I ran across this quote by Paul Harvey from wiki:

In a 2005 monologue, the U.S. response to the World Trade Center attacks prompted Harvey to wax nostaglic.

"Winston Churchill was not here to remind us that we didn’t come this far because we’re made of sugar candy. So, following the New York disaster, we mustered our humanity. We gave old pals a pass, even though men and money from Saudi Arabia were largely responsible for the devastation of New York and Pennsylvania and our Pentagon. We called Saudi Arabians our partners against terrorism and we sent men with rifles into Afghanistan and Iraq, and we kept our best weapons in our silos. Even now we’re standing there dying, daring to do nothing decisive because we’ve declared ourselves to be better than our terrorist enemies -- more moral, more civilized. Our image is at stake, we insist. But we didn't come this far because we're made of sugar candy. Once upon a time, we elbowed our way onto and into this continent by giving smallpox infected blankets to native Americans. Yes, that was biological warfare! And we used every other weapon we could get our hands on to grab this land from whomever. And we grew prosperous. And, yes, we greased the skids with the sweat of slaves. So it goes with most great nation-states, which--feeling guilty about their savage pasts--eventually civilize themselves out of business and wind up invaded and ultimately dominated by the lean, hungry up-and-coming who are not made of sugar candy."

 

[DevonShire]

Paul Harvey has denied making that statement and has asked the wiki to remove it.

And the Detroit station we listen to has Paul Harvey every day and it doesn't sound at all like something he would say. It sounds mean not witty. Harvey's show is about wittiness and discovering surprizing facts, not being political.

 

[MrJim]

Too bad someone would attribute it to him.

It's actually quite a good quote in many respects.

 

[DevonShire]

Too bad someone would attribute it to him.

It's actually quite a good quote in many respects.

Really? I think it seems rather bitter.

There are ways to get the same message across with love and without the bitterness.

 

[MrJim]

Maybe there is,

consider though what is said

So it goes with most great nation-states, which--feeling guilty about their savage pasts--eventually civilize themselves out of business and wind up invaded and ultimately dominated by the lean, hungry up-and-coming who are not made of sugar candy."

That is a fascinating way to put it. The frailty of the worldly kingdoms-the ebb and flow of a lost world captured in sin trying to do what is right in its own blinded eyes.

 

[DevonShire]

Yes those are very flowery words. Harvey tends to be more succinct than that. His sentences are usually shorter, too. He doesn't do a lot of clauses tied to one sentence. He breaks them up into smaller sentences.

I'm perplexed by something though. I thought mennonites were pacifists, but you seem to be of the mind that war is beneficial or even necessary to the existence of a nation.

 

[Danfrey]

I think that Menno is drawing attention to the fact that worldly governments are controlled by the flesh. You will find a big difference between Pacifists and people who hold to a Two Kingdoms theology.

 

[DevonShire]

I think that Menno is drawing attention to the fact that worldly governments are controlled by the flesh. You will find a big difference between Pacifists and people who hold to a Two Kingdoms theology.

It would be great if menno were allowed to speak for himself.

He seems like an intelligent man who is able to articulate his own answers.

 

[MrJim]

Yes those are very flowery words. Harvey tends to be more succinct than that. His sentences are usually shorter, too. He doesn't do a lot of clauses tied to one sentence. He breaks them up into smaller sentences.

I'm perplexed by something though. I thought mennonites were pacifists, but you seem to be of the mind that war is beneficial or even necessary to the existence of a nation.

Generally nations are built on blood. Probably some exceptions out there but it's just one of those things that separate the Kingdom of Man from the Kingdom of God (though even there when the church mingled with man's kingdom blood was spilled "for God")

 

[DevonShire]

Generally nations are built on blood. Probably some exceptions out there but it's just one of those things that separate the Kingdom of Man from the Kingdom of God (though even there when the church mingled with man's kingdom blood was spilled "for God")

Yes, there is actually quite a much longer and more dramatic history of bloodshed in God's name than there is in peace-building in God's name.

 

[MrJim]

Yes, there is actually quite a much longer and more dramatic history of bloodshed in God's name than there is in peace-building in God's name.

Careful now, you are starting to sound a little more anabaptist than baptist

 

[DevonShire]

Careful now, you are starting to sound a little more anabaptist than baptist

My mennonite wife is a bad influence on me.