• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

It's not all Christians, only American ones!

julian the apostate

rule byzantium
Jun 2, 2004
1,146
72
✟1,678.00
Faith
Anglican
Ron Paul's position on empire and homosexual rights is to the left of the POTUS

Sanders is great , he isnt on the ballot, I am fighting a rear guard action

Uncle Noam is a saint, there would be fighting in the streets, it would look like Spain under the Republic if he got within a whiff of the electoral college.

Comparing Ron Paul to Noam Chomsky is simply cruel

Its like comparing Mark Driscoll to Peter Maurin
 
Upvote 0

Diane_Windsor

Senior Contributor
Jun 29, 2004
10,163
495
✟35,407.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
From the article:

the Christian Bible is filled with liberal economic sentiment.

. . . .

many Americans who cite Christianity to justify their economic conservatism may not have actually read the Bible.

No, that is his interpretation of the Bible and calling conservative American Christians "hypocrites" based only upon his opinion is not persuasive.
 
Upvote 0

Im_A

Legend
May 10, 2004
20,113
1,495
✟42,869.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Ron Paul's position on empire and homosexual rights is to the left of the POTUS
And that's your defense of Ron Paul? Because you perceive a right-wing extremist views as left of a president who is left wing with views but inactive in regards to action?

Yea I'll still pass on Ron Paul. That's like saying Barry Goldwater is left wing because he has similar agreements with some liberals. Don't work like that.
Sanders is great , he isnt on the ballot, I am fighting a rear guard action
I know people who voted for Ron Paul when he wasn't on the ballot. A person who doesn't have someone to represent them on a ballot that believes in popular suffrage has to find a write in to vote. I may have found mine with Sanders.
Uncle Noam is a saint, there would be fighting in the streets, it would look like Spain under the Republic if he got within a whiff of the electoral college.

Comparing Ron Paul to Noam Chomsky is simply cruel

Its like comparing Mark Driscoll to Peter Maurin
The intent wasn't to compare Paul to Chomsky. The point was, if you want someone that is highly critical of American hegemony, there is much, much to hope for representation. If we were to only judge what is good for us on ballot, that means any character on a piece of paper would be worthwhile.
 
Upvote 0

Jase

Well-Known Member
Feb 20, 2003
7,330
385
✟10,432.00
Faith
Messianic
Politics
US-Democrat
The war in Iraq and Afghanistan, these have caused the debts to skyrocket IMO. Not paying fair wages to workers, unemployment benefit, pensions or healthcare for the elderly.

Half of all of our debt through at least 2019 is attributable to 2 things: Those 2 wars, and the Bush tax cuts for the rich.
 
Upvote 0

candle glow

whatever I want to be
Jan 2, 2012
2,035
181
Nairobi, Kenya
✟25,632.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
hmmm, the debate between izzy, im_a, and julian sounds really fantastic, even though I don't understand half of what those three are talking about! (I still red off of your posts, though).

I didn't read the article link. I chose to read the responses first, and as a result I felt there probably wasn't much I could understand of the article anyway. I took an economics class in high school; can only seem to remember a seriously strict teacher and a smoking-hot blond.

I don't know what free-trade is, although I've heard some protesters shouting about fair trade in response to free trade, which makes me think there is a problem with free-trade which betrays it's nice sounding name.

What I do understand, very well, are the teachings of Jesus. I hope that doesn't sound self righteous, but it's one of the few areas where I can say that I actually understand what's happening.

Catherine earlier mentioned the sermon on the mount, and I cheered for her doing so, even though she stopped short of being explicit about what Jesus taught regarding money in that sermon.

He said that we cannot work for God and money at the same time without cheating on one or the other. He said that the birds and flowers don't have jobs, and yet God is able to feed and clothe them.

He said that our real job is to work for his kingdom of love and that he will take care fo anyone who chooses to put his values first, as opposed to the values of the world.

He said that all the faithless people of the world chase after what they can eat and clothes they can wear, but that we should not be like them; in stead, we should work to build God's kingdom instead, but practicing his values.

I know it sounds silly, but Jesus addressed issues of greed more so that any other leader anywhere. I think that's worth voting for, even if it only results in a change in ourselves.
 
Upvote 0

GadFly

Newbie
May 11, 2008
2,358
82
North Eastern Kentucky
✟25,673.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
This article seems to bash Americans and lift up England.

I'm in Canada and we have a similar volunteer, taking care of one another and immigration acceptance attitude even though this country doesn't have Christianity as it's national religion anymore.
The fact is that we have always been and still are one nation under God and a nation that still trusts in God. To most citizens that means we are a Christian nation. We are not atheistic or liberal, humanistic or in favor of homosexuality, we simply tolerate your right to sinfulness and the pleasure sin brings. But, when a city tries to take away our chicken and cokes, they certainly tell us how dangerous their liberalism is and how far they are wiling to go. Today, it is chicken, tomorrow it will be the cow. Just to be safe, don't let the dog out to play as the word is out from an unnamed source that liberals like to eat dogs.



























god
 
Upvote 0

candle glow

whatever I want to be
Jan 2, 2012
2,035
181
Nairobi, Kenya
✟25,632.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Hi Gad,

I think part of the problem with what you've shared is that God's kingdom cannot be found through nationalism. You talk about "one nation under God", but really, God isn't looking for holy nations. He's looking for holy people.

I think the idea gets confused when individuals are allowed to hide behind the faith of an organization (whether it be a church or a country), rather than expressing their faith as individuals.

But, when a city tries to take away our chicken and cokes, they certainly tell us how dangerous their liberalism is and how far they are wiling to go. Today, it is chicken, tomorrow it will be the cow.

Can you elaborate on how you are applying this idea of people taking something from you, to the values that Jesus expressed as being the values of the Kingdom of Heaven?
 
Upvote 0

Izdaari Eristikon

Well-Known Member
Mar 12, 2007
6,174
448
71
Post Falls, Idaho
✟47,841.00
Country
United States
Faith
Episcopalian
Marital Status
Married
One thing that is overwhelmingly clear to me from all of Jesus' teachings: He wanted each of us as individuals to change. He wasn't looking for change driven by government. Grassroots change, bottom up, not top down. So Christian "progressives" who want to do it the other way 'round, top down, government-driven change, are getting the wrong message from His teachings.
 
Upvote 0
S

someguy14

Guest
Upvote 0

Jase

Well-Known Member
Feb 20, 2003
7,330
385
✟10,432.00
Faith
Messianic
Politics
US-Democrat
One thing that is overwhelmingly clear to me from all of Jesus' teachings: He wanted each of us as individuals to change. He wasn't looking for change driven by government. Grassroots change, bottom up, not top down. So Christian "progressives" who want to do it the other way 'round, top down, government-driven change, are getting the wrong message from His teachings.

I certainly think one can use the government to promote change in line with Jesus' teachings. Almost all of the positive changes in the US were due to progressives. Women being allowed to vote, not being property of their husbands, interracial marriage, end to segregation, gay rights, etc. Most of which was done through the government.

Do liberals and progressives go overboard some times? Sure, they are human too. But I don't think there is anything wrong with using the government for its purpose to benefit humanity.
 
Upvote 0

Izdaari Eristikon

Well-Known Member
Mar 12, 2007
6,174
448
71
Post Falls, Idaho
✟47,841.00
Country
United States
Faith
Episcopalian
Marital Status
Married
I certainly think one can use the government to promote change in line with Jesus' teachings. Almost all of the positive changes in the US were due to progressives. Women being allowed to vote, not being property of their husbands, interracial marriage, end to segregation, gay rights, etc. Most of which was done through the government.

Do liberals and progressives go overboard some times? Sure, they are human too. But I don't think there is anything wrong with using the government for its purpose to benefit humanity.

Just a sec: I need to compartmentalize my brain for a minute to give this a fair answer.

:hypno:

Ok, temporarily reconfigured. From the PoV of Christian principles and not libertarian ones, I think it can be ok to use government for that.

But yes, I do think liberals/progressives go overboard with it. They seem to have a naive trust in government as a change agent, and forget that government has its own institutional imperatives which are not necessarily in the public interest, that it is heavily influenced by lobbies whose interests are not the public interest, that giving it more power necessarily and unavoidably gives those lobbies more power, and that for every intended consequence of a government intervention there are also unintended consequences.

And libertarian ideology aside, trying to think only as a Christian, I seriously never found in the Bible even a single instance of Jesus advocating or even condoning coercion as a means to accomplish a good end, and that makes me hesitant to advocate it as a Christian. I think Jesus and Lao Tzu, if they had met (disregarding that they were a few hundred years and thousands of miles apart), would have been very much on the same page on that.


Why are People Starving? (by Lao Tzu, from the Tao Te Ching)

Why are people starving?
Because the rulers eat up the money in taxes.
Therefore the people are starving.

Why are the people rebellious?
Because the rulers interfere too much.
Therefore they are rebellious.

Why do people think so little of death?
Because the rulers demand too much of life.
Therefore the people take life lightly.

Having to live on,
one knows better than to value life too much.



Ok, I have to admit to a tiny bit of Christian/Taoist syncretism. Before I came back to the Christian fold, after my teen years as a wandering seeker, I was a Zen/Taoist for a while (philosophical Taoism and Zen are nearly the same thing, in different cultural trappings). For me, it served as a kind of spiritual footpath back towards Christianity, and the first spiritual place I found enough pieces of the cosmic jigsaw puzzle to begin to make sense of the big picture. I've tried to keep only the bits that are compatible with Christianity, but it still influences my thinking.

:blink:

Ok, back to normal Izzy mode. :cool:
 
Upvote 0

candle glow

whatever I want to be
Jan 2, 2012
2,035
181
Nairobi, Kenya
✟25,632.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I'm posting a study about this issue of man's trust in the government, which also relates to prophecy. It's a bit long, but I feel it's relevant to the topic. It's a chapter out of a book on my website called "Armageddon for Beginners". You can find the address in my profile.

--------------------------
We have noted that one of the recurring themes of Bible prophecy is that God has a spiritual kingdom which is more powerful than any earthly kingdom. But people invariably lean in favour of political power rather than spiritual power.

When his own people, the Children of Israel, asked to have a king, God gave in to their wishes; but he stated that they only wanted a king because they had already turned away from him. (I Samuel 8:4-8) Their spiritual leader, Samuel, told them it was "great wickedness" to be wanting a king. (I Samuel 12:17-19)

One of the world's greatest sociologists, Max Weber, did a monumental study of the various religions of the world, and came to the conclusion that every major religion exists for one purpose, and that is to teach the people to worship their country and their king. Despite all the talk about God, and about other religious matters, there is precious little evidence that any religion has a commitment to truth, love, faith, or God that is stronger than their loyalty to their country. Their talk of God is all a sham.

So it is little wonder that the King of kings... the God of heaven... the Creator of the Universe would be more than a little upset with our stubborn faith in "the arm of flesh" to save and defend us, rather than his transcendent power. And he makes that point abundantly clear in prophecy after prophecy.

A prophecy which illustrates that point, and which gives us some clues toward understanding the final world government that will be set up on earth, is found in Daniel 2:31-45.

The background to the prophecy is that many of the children of Israel had been carried away as captives by the Babylonian Empire. Daniel was one of them; but he managed to get himself a pretty good position working for Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon. One night, the king had a dream in which he saw a statue with a head of gold, arms and chest of silver, stomach and thighs of brass, legs of iron, and feet of both iron and clay mixed together.

In the dream, a stone came out of nowhere and struck the image on its feet, totally destroying it. Then the little stone grew into a mountain which eventually filled the whole earth. The king felt that the dream was very significant. He wanted Daniel to interpret it.

Daniel said that the statue was of the king himself; but that it also represented four empires that would come after the Babylonian Empire.

We know from history that the Babylonian Empire was followed by the Medo-Persian Empire (an alliance, symbolised by two arms of silver). This was followed by an empire that Daniel said would "bear rule over all the earth", symbolised by the statue's brass stomach and thighs. (Daniel 2:39) History shows that this empire which bore rule over all the earth was the Greek Empire.

Then there was to be a fourth empire, represented by the legs of the statue, which would be as "strong as iron". (Daniel 2:40) The Roman Empire succeeded the Greek Empire. Like the two legs, the Roman Empire eventually divided into Eastern Europe and Western Europe.

Since the fall of the Roman Empire, there has been no single world government . Like the feet of the statue in the king's dream, the world has been divided between dictatorships (i.e. iron countries) and democracies (i.e. clay countries). In this century the division has been between the two super-powers, America (representing the West) and Russia (representing the East).

Daniel made particular mention of the ten toes, and he referred to them as a kingdom in themselves a kingdom that is "partly strong and partly broken". So far, this empire has not appeared.

When the stone came out of nowhere, it struck the feet of the statue, and in so doing, it destroyed the entire image. Here is an important point that is illustrated by the statue and by a similar prophecy in The Revelation.

Although the statue started out as being a statue of King Nebuchadnezzar, it is also a statue of all the succeeding world empires. In the Revelation prophecy, there is a Beast with several different heads. The heads come and go, but the Beast stays the same. Or as one cynical voter put it, "No matter who you vote for, you still end up with a politician!"

So when a humble little stone comes out of nowhere and destroys the last manifestation of the Beast, it effectively destroys all the empires that have preceded it as well.

And what is the little stone? Daniel says that it is a kingdom which has been set up by God himself, a kingdom "which shall never be destroyed. The kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever." (Daniel 2:44-45)

This kingdom which is not in any way associated with all the other kingdoms, is nothing less than the "kingdom of heaven" that Jesus Christ spoke of. The kingdom of heaven was the theme of Christ's message from start to finish. He started out by saying, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!" (Matthew 4:17) And he finished up by saying that "This gospel [or good news] of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness to all nations; and then shall the end come." (Matthew 24:14)

The gospel that most of the world has heard from the churches is about a kingdom in heaven (that you only go to when you die). This conveniently leaves the door open for them to continue to promote their various political kingdoms here on earth between now and when we die. But the gospel that Jesus wants preached is one that dares to challenge the right of any kingdom to stop us from serving and obeying God right now.

The kingdom of heaven does not evolve from the other kingdoms (as each successive empire and government has done throughout history). Instead of evolution, it is represented by revolution. Not military revolution, for that, too, would be like trying to destroy the devil by using weapons that we purchase from the devil himself. A true revolution works on truly revolutionary principles.

Instead of hitting back, we turn the other cheek. Instead of fighting our enemies, we love them. Instead of trying to be great, we try to serve. Instead of trying to save our lives, we choose to lay them down. Instead of being a Beast, we become meek Lambs.

That is the good news of the kingdom of heaven. And it is a message that has not yet been preached throughout all the world. The King of Babylon missed it. (He went out and had a huge statue made of himself, and ordered the people to bow down to it!) The people missed it in Christ's day. They killed their Messiah. And they are missing it today. This happens because they are looking for an earthly king who will conform to their earthly ideas about power and wealth.

Jesus said to the Jewish leaders, "Did you never read in the scriptures, 'The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner. This is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes.' Therefore I say to you, The kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits of it. And whoever will fall on this stone shall be broken; but on whomever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder."
(Matthew 21:42-44)

The stone is the Kingdom and the stone is the King. The stone is Jesus and all that he taught. The empires of man rest on clay by comparison.

Jesus said in another place, "Whoever hears these sayings of mine and does them, I will liken him unto a wise man which built his house upon a rock and everyone that hears these sayings of mine and does not obey them, shall be likened to a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand. The rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat upon that house, and it fell. Great was the fall of it." (Matthew 7:24-27) The kingdom of heaven is the kingdom that will destroy all the others and last forever.

But is anyone really listening?

Instead, the world moves relentlessly toward the final world government, as people from all parties and all religions are drawn together by their common lack of faith in a real God who is bigger than politics.

You will recall that we earlier mentioned four "beasts" that Daniel saw in a dream. Three were described as recognisable animals (the panther, the bear, and the lion with eagle's wings), but the fourth was quite different from the others. It had iron teeth and brass claws and ten horns on its head. Daniel said of it (7:7) , that "it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it."

What Daniel was describing seems to be a unique world government which is based, not on a single king, but on an international alliance between many nations; a world government that does not come through military conquest, but rather through peaceful negotiation and co-operation; a kind of united group of nations!

This final world government worried Daniel. In particular, he was concerned about the ten horns on its head. He says, "I considered the horns and behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots. And behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things." (Daniel 7:8)

So the ten horns (and the ten toes) appear to represent ten countries or leaders. But this "other little horn" is the real nasty, the ultimate Beast or Antichrist, the world dictator, who comes to power by destroying (or at least silencing) three other countries, leaving a ten-member council to become the new world empire.

Daniel seeks further information about this unusual Beast, and this is what he gets: "Then I would know the truth of the fourth beast, which was diverse from all the others, exceeding dreadful, whose teeth were of iron and his nails of brass; which devoured, broke in pieces and stamped the residue with his feet; and of the ten horns that were in his head, and of the other which came up and before whom three fell; even of that horn that had eyes and a mouth that spoke very great things, whose look was more stout than his fellows.

"I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints. He prevailed against them until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High, and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom." (Daniel 7:19-22)

Note that this final world leader makes war against the saints. Other references to him indicate that he is actually quite popular with the rest of the world. Far from being a monster, he comes across as a saviour, at least at first. True, he has terrible power; but the power is primarily used against one group of individuals, the "saints". Everyone else seems to benefit.

God's angel explained the vision further to Daniel, more or less restating what we have already guessed: "The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms and shall devour the whole earth and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces.

The ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise. Another shall rise after them and he shall be diverse from the first; and he shall subdue three kings. He shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws. And they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time." (Daniel 7:23-25)

This phrase ("a time and times and the dividing of time") is translated as three and a half years in most modern translations. It is the same phrase that is used for three and a half years (or 42 months, or 1260 days) in The Revelation. This is the period of "great trouble" that is covered in chapters 8-13 of The Revelation.

The dream about the ten toes and the dream about the ten horns both end in much the same way, with God setting up his kingdom and doing away with the systems of man. In the king's dream, he saw a stone strike the statue on its feet and destroy it. In Daniel's dream he says that he saw the Beast "slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame." (Daniel 7:11)

He says, "The judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his [i.e. the evil king's] dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end And the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom" (Daniel 7:26-27)

We have here pretty much the basic message of The Revelation and of all prophecy, which is that God's kingdom is eternal, while man's kingdoms are temporary. A very simple message, and yet one that is missed almost universally. People pay lip service to their various concepts of God in weekly religious rituals; but in practice, they look to the systems of man for all that matters in their lives.
 
Upvote 0

Spiritlight

✰•.¸¸★•*´¨`*•.¸.✰
Apr 1, 2011
2,116
429
manitoba
✟30,618.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I saw your Sarah Palin example, I saw a TV documentary on her not to long ago, I am seriously worried for you guys. Do you guys like her? Is she like many American christians? actually i dont know, That is why I am asking.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Izdaari Eristikon

Well-Known Member
Mar 12, 2007
6,174
448
71
Post Falls, Idaho
✟47,841.00
Country
United States
Faith
Episcopalian
Marital Status
Married
I saw your Sarah Palin example, I saw a TV documentary on her not to long ago, I am seriously worried for you guys. Do you guys like her? Is she like many American christians? actually i dont know, That is why I am asking.
I like her as a person, but I am not on board with her fundamentalist flavor of Christianity or her "religious right" politics. I don't think any WWMC regular would be, and I'm probably one of the most conservative ones here.
 
Upvote 0