The elephant in the room: the massive, looming problem of the Christian Right.

[RDKirk]

More precisely "... not from this world" Emphatically for this world. "thy kingdom come ... on earth..."

"Earth" in that passage is the Greek ge (from which we get words such as "geography"), not the word cosmos (from which we get "cosmopolitian").

The word cosmos is most often translated "world" or "nation." Cosmos normally refers to the political-economic systems created by man, although a couple of times it does refer to "mankind" in general when it's necessary to distinguish humanity from the planet.

When scripture speaks of the "earth," it's talking about the natural planet that God created and lays claim to. The planet belongs to God. Mankind in general belongs to God. God has a salvation plan for the planet and for mankind.

But the political-economic systems created by man are not God's creations. From Nimrod through Nebuchanezzar, through Caesar, to today, God has never claimed ownership or expressed an intention to save the political-economic systems created by man.

 

[RDKirk]

I'm pretty sure "a creation of humanity" is what you both mean.

I think we can still lay that blame predominantly on males.

 

[RDKirk]

being King of the Universe is a lot bigger than anything as small as inner country politics.

Isaiah said it best when it comes to trying to place something as inconsequential as politics with God.

"Surely the nations are like a drop in a bucket; they are regarded as dust on the scales; he weighs the islands as though they were fine dust."

..in the end.. all worldly pettiness like political division is meaningless to a christian.

When you see Christians with essentially the same theology at loggerheads because of the politics of a single country in the world, you know that politics is a problem.

When a Christian finally realizes in his gut that he is a citizen of Heaven and not a citizen of any worldly nation, his view of worldly politics and culture totally changes.

For a citizen of Heaven, an earthly "culture war" is not his war. He is not deployed from heaven to earth to take sides in a war between two earthly cultures--he's here to rescue refugees from both cultures and to offer them asylum in the kingdom of Heaven.

But this is the problem: People come into Christianity like the Assyrians entered Israel:

They worshiped the LORD but still served the gods they brought with them. -- 2 Kings 17

Too many Christians worship the Lord but continue to give allegiance to their earthly Caesars.

 

[ebia]

"Earth" in that passage is the Greek ge (from which we get words such as "geography"), not the word cosmos (from which we get "cosmopolitian"). The word cosmos is most often translated "world" or "nation." Cosmos normally refers to the political-economic systems created by man, although a couple of times it does refer to "mankind" in general when it's necessary to distinguish humanity from the planet. When scripture speaks of the "earth," it's talking about the natural planet that God created and lays claim to. The planet belongs to God. Mankind in general belongs to God. God has a salvation plan for the planet and for mankind. But the political-economic systems created by man are not God's creations. From Nimrod through Nebuchanezzar, through Caesar, to today, God has never claimed ownership or expressed an intention to save the political-economic systems created by man.

And so a prayer for gods Kingdom to come on earth is not an a-political statement but a highly political one

 

[RDKirk]

And so a prayer for gods Kingdom to come on earth is not an a-political statement but a highly political one

I was a military man stationed in the Philippines when Ferdinand Marcos was ousted. After the "People's Revolution," we compared our notes and discovered something interesting.

The revolt was kicked off by the commander of the Philippine Air Force. All of us who had a Philippine Air Force contact (from our general on down even to me) had been asked the same question by our PAF contact two weeks before the revolution: "What would the US military do if there were a popular coup against Marcos?"

We already had an answer: Nothing. We already knew we would be able to continue our mission for our own country under what would be the new regime, so we didn't care whether Marcos stayed in power or not. We were apolitical with regard to Philippine politics, so we watched the revolution happen around us with only detached interest.

It's precisely the same way for citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven. Our only concern is the prayer of 1 Timothy 2:

I urge that petitions, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for everyone, for kings and all those who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity.

All the citizens of Heaven care about with regard to kings on earth is that we are able to carry out our basic mission: Preach the gospel and take care of one another. With regard to everything else: Only detached interest.

 

[RDKirk]

And so a prayer for gods Kingdom to come on earth is not an a-political statement but a highly political one

As Jesus already said, God's kingdom is already on earth.

Did you know that the grounds of a foreign embassy are considered the actual sovereign territory of that nation? The Russian embassy grounds in Washington DC are considered the actual sovereign soil of Russia, and the American embassy grounds in Russia are considered the actual sovereign soil of the United States.

As scripture says, we are the ambassadors of the kingdom of Heaven in the nations of this world, which means that our homes and our bodies (as temples of Christ) are the sovereign territory of Heaven...the kingdom of Heaven is in us and is us, just as Jesus said:

"Once, on being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is within you.” -- Luke 17

 

[ebia]

I was a military man stationed in the Philippines when Ferdinand Marcos was ousted. After the "People's Revolution," we compared our notes and discovered something interesting. The revolt was kicked off by the commander of the Philippine Air Force. All of us who had a Philippine Air Force contact (from our general on down even to me) had been asked the same question by our PAF contact two weeks before the revolution: "What would the US military do if there were a popular coup against Marcos?" We already had an answer: Nothing. We already knew we would be able to continue our mission for our own country under what would be the new regime, so we didn't care whether Marcos stayed in power or not. We were apolitical with regard to Philippine politics, so we watched the revolution happen around us with only detached interest. It's precisely the same way for citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven. Our only concern is the prayer of 1 Timothy 2: I urge that petitions, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for everyone, for kings and all those who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. All the citizens of Heaven care about with regard to kings on earth is that we are able to carry out our basic mission: Preach the gospel and take care of one another. With regard to everything else: Only detached interest.

cute story, but I'm not sure why you'd build your theology on it.

 

[ebia]

As Jesus already said, God's kingdom is already on earth.

And yet we still pray for it to come.

Did you know that the grounds of a foreign embassy are considered the actual sovereign territory of that nation? The Russian embassy grounds in Washington DC are considered the actual sovereign soil of Russia, and the American embassy grounds in Russia are considered the actual sovereign soil of the United States. As scripture says, we are the ambassadors of the kingdom of Heaven in the nations of this world, which means that our homes and our bodies (as temples of Christ) are the sovereign territory of Heaven...

You think first century writers had in mind modern diplomatic arrangements as the key to understanding their metaphors?

 

[RDKirk]

And yet we still pray for it to come.


You think first century writers had in mind modern diplomatic arrangements as the key to understanding their metaphors?

Those are ancient diplomatic arrangements--which is why, for instance, in the Israel monarchy a man could throw himself on the altar at the tabernacle and be protected from the king--and if the king ignored that, it was considered a sin against God.

Until fairly recently, church buildings were regarded by Western governments as the sovereign territory of God--if you got to the church, the king's soldiers couldn't touch you.

Nothing "modern" about that concept.

 

[RDKirk]

cute story, but I'm not sure why you'd build your theology on it.

I guess your attention wandered before you got to the scripture, even though I put it in red text.

A lot of Christians have put the treasure of their hearts in the earthly geo-political/economic entity they were first born into. They treasure their earthly citizenship, their hearts are in it, they've given their allegiances to it, even though scripture tells them to put their treasure in heaven, not in this world. They think they owe their loyalties to human kings and governments, even though scripture tells them to owe no man anything but love.

 

[ebia]

Those are ancient diplomatic arrangements--which is why, for instance, in the Israel monarchy a man could throw himself on the altar at the tabernacle and be protected from the king--and if the king ignored that, it was considered a sin against God. Until fairly recently, church buildings were regarded by Western governments as the sovereign territory of God--if you got to the church, the king's soldiers couldn't touch you. Nothing "modern" about that concept.

You seem to be confusing sanctuary with diplomatic arrangements.

 

[ebia]

I guess your attention wandered before you got to the scripture, even though I put it in red text.

It seemed to be there for decoration, having nothing to do with the story or the point under discussion.

 

[Psalm 91]

I was a military man stationed in the Philippines when Ferdinand Marcos was ousted. After the "People's Revolution," we compared our notes and discovered something interesting.

The revolt was kicked off by the commander of the Philippine Air Force. All of us who had a Philippine Air Force contact (from our general on down even to me) had been asked the same question by our PAF contact two weeks before the revolution: "What would the US military do if there were a popular coup against Marcos?"

We already had an answer: Nothing. We already knew we would be able to continue our mission for our own country under what would be the new regime, so we didn't care whether Marcos stayed in power or not. We were apolitical with regard to Philippine politics, so we watched the revolution happen around us with only detached interest.

It's precisely the same way for citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven. Our only concern is the prayer of 1 Timothy 2:

I urge that petitions, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for everyone, for kings and all those who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity.

All the citizens of Heaven care about with regard to kings on earth is that we are able to carry out our basic mission: Preach the gospel and take care of one another. With regard to everything else: Only detached interest.

WOW! WOW, WOW, WOW!!!

The government is not going to allow any water to go to the farmers for their drought-stricken crops, which will raise the price of produce in the coming months. Canned foods will also increase in price because many contain fruits and vegetables. 50% of our country is too poor to pay taxes much less pay more for produce so once again, the poor will suffer from poor nutrition, especially children who need it for bone and brain growth. So, sure, I know believers have a God who watches over them, but those without the means to pay the higher cost of produce and meat, so you really believe they should ignore these things so they can live in peace and tranquility while a tyrant is attempting to starve people? They can have godliness but how can they have dignity? Do your children go without fruit and vegetables? Do you put your children to bed hungry at night?

You are using God to defend a drought that was orchestrated by the government who works for the illuminati, who wants the population of the world decreased by 90%. Or you are trying to defend a tyrannical government. We have all of the signs surrounding us and yet people like you urge people to sit by and do nothing. They will use the military to confiscate our guns and yet you'll say something like, "our military would never shoot at it's own citizens". We'll see.

We have sat by and watched as fifty million unborn babies have been killed by the Supreme Court. We are followers of Jesus but we do nothing for Him. We were naïve enough to stand outside the courthouse with a few signs of protest once the decision had already been made! God bless those who were there but it meant nothing. We're a bunch of wet noodles!

How can you live in peace and tranquility when all winter you see apartment fires on the news every night from people who have no heat using space heaters? Little kids holding onto each other as the fire consumes them. One little boy was found crying outside the building and when asked why he was crying, he said, "Because my mother works so hard!". Sure, we all have difficulties in life. It was never meant to be easy. But when the Romans left unwanted babies on the roadside to die, it was Christians who picked them up and gave them homes. What are we doing now? Nothing.

I'm old and in poor health but I can tell younger people that I wish I could go back and be different. I wouldn't rest, if I'd been a believer back then. As long as there were children starving and my government trying to stomp on the Constitution and enslave working people under the guise of "helping" them, I would not live in peace and tranquility. There is spiritual peace, but it must be in balance with the reality surrounding us.

I could go on and on but I'll just say one more thing. We have a government which gave out phones and gave out more food stamps, ONLY to take a lot of the food stamps away later. I guess phones are more important than nutrition but whatever. We have a government which will increase the minimum wage which will lead to less hiring which will put many more on temporary unemployment. Now that is a dilemma because those working for minimum wage are adults with families, not teenagers anymore. And why is that? Because adults are being laid off either by their companies suffering during the recession or because they can't pay for Obamacare for their employees. So many of these laid off employees will end up on Medicaid and terminal unemployment. Do you not see a pattern here? Do you not see the plans unfolding to enslave people and make them dependent on the government??? The decision making in the administration is showing that it is poor and makes no sense unless you want people to all depend on the government. How can you be at peace about that? Especially when you know that the value of the dollar is plummeting and soon these poor dependents will not be able to live on the pittance they get from the government?

 

[Warrior Poet]

Please stop. I have lived in CA my entire life, 18 years of it in the CV. I watched them use automated systems to water huge crops after massive rains, let personal farm catches and overflow systems crumble and dry up because it cost to much to "keep up". They had the government build a reservoir system on the taxpayer dime. They actually campaigned against local and state effort after effort to become sustainable and tap into renewable water sources and facilities. They pushed aside great ideas for water conservation over continued profit and pushed propaganda about water conservation destroying the farm industry. WOW WOW WOW!!!

My grandfather worked his entire life, after serving in WWII, as a foreman for multiple ranches and farms. He could foresee the farmers love for profit to be their very undoing, since water was their true currency, and it's not limitless. His employer stopped all crops on his land, sold it off over 20 years making millions over and over. Why? Because farming at that rate, 27 years ago, could not be sustained. These people were the worst stewards with their resources, and knew what they were doing.

Take some personal responsibility and admit the misuse stop the blame game. Greed and gluttony have orchestrated the severity of this natural drought.

Our government has, indeed, failed many many times. Christians and their "leaders" have failed even worse over the last two decades; they folded to fear mongering, conspiracy theories, political influence/pressure, monetary prestige, excess equaling prosperity, money dictating worth, peace through promoting violence, and an utter lack of guidance, protection and usage of both the Bible and apostolic theology. That is just in the USA!! What do we get? I guess, the right to spew that our lack of leadership was someone else's fault. How liberal of us Christians.

We are a community of millions yet lack a very basic catholic (universal) Christian social theology which allows us to make an actual difference. All because of our fear of political intolerance and our entitlement to unaccountable patriotism?

That just sounds so pathetic.

Warrior Poet

 

[Psalm 91]

Please stop. I have lived in CA my entire life, 18 years of it in the CV. I watched them use automated systems to water huge crops after massive rains, let personal farm catches and overflow systems crumble and dry up because it cost to much to "keep up". They had the government build a reservoir system on the taxpayer dime. They actually campaigned against local and state effort after effort to become sustainable and tap into renewable water sources and facilities. They pushed aside great ideas for water conservation over continued profit and pushed propaganda about water conservation destroying the farm industry. WOW WOW WOW!!!

My grandfather worked his entire life, after serving in WWII, as a foreman for multiple ranches and farms. He could foresee the farmers love for profit to be their very undoing, since water was their true currency, and it's not limitless. His employer stopped all crops on his land, sold it off over 20 years making millions over and over. Why? Because farming at that rate, 27 years ago, could not be sustained. These people were the worst stewards with their resources, and knew what they were doing.

Take some personal responsibility and admit the misuse stop the blame game. Greed and gluttony have orchestrated the severity of this natural drought.

Our government has, indeed, failed many many times. Christians and their "leaders" have failed even worse over the last two decades; they folded to fear mongering, conspiracy theories, political influence/pressure, monetary prestige, excess equaling prosperity, money dictating worth, peace through promoting violence, and an utter lack of guidance, protection and usage of both the Bible and apostolic theology. That is just in the USA!! What do we get? I guess, the right to spew that our lack of leadership was someone else's fault. How liberal of us Christians.

We are a community of millions yet lack a very basic catholic (universal) Christian social theology which allows us to make an actual difference. All because of our fear of political intolerance and our entitlement to unaccountable patriotism?

That just sounds so pathetic.

Warrior Poet

So...you must have been a toddler when the Midwest farm crisis took place.

The Midwest Farm Crisis of the 1980s

Maybe you never heard about how hard the Great Depression affected farmers back in 1929.

I wish I'd paid more attention back in the '80's because many farms were foreclosed on. Movies were made about it and Willy Nelson and other singers held Farm Aid concerts to help them. I too lived in California, twice, and I think you should leave the farmers alone. You know why? Because all of you are very materialistic. I could not believe how other nurses I worked with talked about nothing but money. There were high fences around the homes and vans in the driveway (at a time when few people had them). Fortunately, I grew up in the Midwest surrounded by farmers and I have a great deal of respect for them. My father used to take us for rides out in the country after dinner and you could hear the crickets, see the corn growing and smell the cow manure. I remember it being comforting.


I also remember a few years ago when the sprinklers in the San Joaquin Valley were shut off so as not to kill some minnow that kept getting caught in the sprinkler system. I remember seeing the people who'd been laid off being fed by someone out in the country and they had children with them. But minnows are more important than people in California, I guess. They seem to have their values mixed up in a lot of ways. I thought there was a chance when Arnold became a governor but he was quickly trained to see that only liberals can survive out there so he became a liberal and taxes and debt went up and up. He ended up a failure when he could have saved the state if he hadn't given in to liberal pressure. Of course you'll never admit that but look who was elected this time, an old hippie who may be more liberal than Obama if it's possible.

Why don't you look and see what happened to the water preserved in the reservoirs in California? And then why don't you look and see how important farmers are to your life. Where do you think all of those beautiful fruits and vegetables you see in the store come from? What would you do without them? And then stop badmouthing them.

As far as Christianity in this country, no one has forced pastors yet because they cooperate with the godlessness going on in this country by having Starbucks in the lobby and wine bars (you know, there are Christian alcoholics too). They are teaching absurd theology such as Replacement Theology, Preterism, pro-choice, pro-homosexuality. They teach that Sodom and Gomorrah's destruction had nothing to do with homosexuality. So don't blame any conspiracy theorists and "folding to fear mongering", etc. for their heresy. They don't appear to even fear God.

 

[RDKirk]

But when the Romans left unwanted babies on the roadside to die, it was Christians who picked them up and gave them homes. What are we doing now? Nothing.

I'm glad you included this, because it answers the rest of your post.

The ancient Romans practiced both surgical and chemical abortions. They also did leave imperfect babies to the elements to die.

Yes, Christians rescued those babies and raised them as their own (which meant, remember, nursing Christian mothers sucking these unwanted babies on their own breasts).

When the pagan Romans discovered this practice, they accused Christians of cannibalism--that the Christians were using these babies in weekly orgies of drinking blood and eating flesh. In the mid-2nd century, a Christian named Athenagoras stood before Caesar to defend Christians against this false accusation.

Athenagoras pointed out that Christians were even then preaching against abortion. His argument was, essentially, "You know we preach against abortion, so how could we also be killing babies ourselves?"

But this is the thing that the pagan Romans saw: Christians didn't just preach at pagans against abortion. They didn't even insist that Caesar change the laws to prevent abortion or save the children. They went out and rescued the babies themselves.

When did you see Christians today do the same thing--standing at the abortion clinics saying, "Don't kill your babies--we will take them!" It's not without evidence that pagans can quip, "Christians only care about babies until they're born."

Why did those Christians not implore Caesar to obey God? Because pagans are pagans, and Paul had already exhaustively explained that pagans cannot obey God. Nowhere in the New Testament is the Church ever given the mission to fix the Roman empire, of which the US is a vestige.

Jesus never told us to fix the Roman empire, and Paul certainly never took that as his mission. There is no indication that the early Church fathers of the 2nd and third centuries ever took up the mission of fixing the Roman empire.

After Constantine and the next two emperors made Christianity the Roman state religion, people got the idea that they could make pagans obey God by putting a sword to their throats, and that's where Christianity was headed up unto the Protestant Reformation into the Thirty Years War. That ended the future possibility of a Holy Roman Empire, but kings still considered it their right to dictate the religion of their subjects (as kings had been doing since Nimrod).

Because the king was the patron of the Church, the Church had a stake in the king's success, whether it was by holy or unholy means. Because the king gave status to the Church, it was socially advantageous for ambitious men to profess Christianity and take Church leadership positions whether they truly believed it or not.

But a number of theologians realized that the historical mingling of church and king--the use of the king's sword by the Church to enforce Christianity and the use of the Church by the king to give moral justification to his actions-- was inherently detrimental to holiness. The believed that in order for the Church to remain holy, it must be kept separate from the State. Those people were called "Separatists," which included the Pilgrims and Puritans.

Between the time the Pilgrims settled in America and the American Revolution, the English Civil War--a war between the Separatists and those who believed in the "Established Church"--had occurred, which solidified the concept of the separation of Church and State in the American colonies.

Roger Williams--the Puritan pastor who founded the first Baptist congregation in America--was also the first to coin and use the phrase, "wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world" in his 1644 landmark treatise "The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution for the Sake of Conscience."

It's no coincidence that Baptist doctrine still concisely enunciates the proposition:

God alone is Lord of the conscience, and He has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are contrary to His Word or not contained in it. Church and state should be separate.

The state owes to every church protection and full freedom in the pursuit of its spiritual ends. In providing for such freedom no ecclesiastical group or denomination should be favored by the state more than others. Civil government being ordained of God, it is the duty of Christians to render loyal obedience thereto in all things not contrary to the revealed will of God.

The church should not resort to the civil power to carry on its work. The gospel of Christ contemplates spiritual means alone for the pursuit of its ends. The state has no right to impose penalties for religious opinions of any kind. The state has no right to impose taxes for the support of any form of religion.

A free church in a free state is the Christian ideal, and this implies the right of free and unhindered access to God on the part of all men, and the right to form and propagate opinions in the sphere of religion without interference by the civil power.

 

[Psalm 91]

I'm glad you included this, because it answers the rest of your post.

The ancient Romans practiced both surgical and chemical abortions. They also did leave imperfect babies to the elements to die.

Yes, Christians rescued those babies and raised them as their own (which meant, remember, nursing Christian mothers sucking these unwanted babies on their own breasts).

When the pagan Romans discovered this practice, they accused Christians of cannibalism--that the Christians were using these babies in weekly orgies of drinking blood and eating flesh. In the mid-2nd century, a Christian named Athenagoras stood before Caesar to defend Christians against this false accusation.

Athenagoras pointed out that Christians were even then preaching against abortion. His argument was, essentially, "You know we preach against abortion, so how could we also be killing babies ourselves?"

But this is the thing that the pagan Romans saw: Christians didn't just preach at pagans against abortion. They didn't even insist that Caesar change the laws to prevent abortion or save the children. They went out and rescued the babies themselves.

When did you see Christians today do the same thing--standing at the abortion clinics saying, "Don't kill your babies--we will take them!" It's not without evidence that pagans can quip, "Christians only care about babies until they're born."

Why did those Christians not implore Caesar to obey God? Because pagans are pagans, and Paul had already exhaustively explained that pagans cannot obey God. Nowhere in the New Testament is the Church ever given the mission to fix the Roman empire, of which the US is a vestige.

Jesus never told us to fix the Roman empire, and Paul certainly never took that as his mission. There is no indication that the early Church fathers of the 2nd and third centuries ever took up the mission of fixing the Roman empire.

After Constantine and the next two emperors made Christianity the Roman state religion, people got the idea that they could make pagans obey God by putting a sword to their throats, and that's where Christianity was headed up unto the Protestant Reformation into the Thirty Years War. That ended the future possibility of a Holy Roman Empire, but kings still considered it their right to dictate the religion of their subjects (as kings had been doing since Nimrod).

Because the king was the patron of the Church, the Church had a stake in the king's success, whether it was by holy or unholy means. Because the king gave status to the Church, it was socially advantageous for ambitious men to profess Christianity and take Church leadership positions whether they truly believed it or not.

But a number of theologians realized that the historical mingling of church and king--the use of the king's sword by the Church to enforce Christianity and the use of the Church by the king to give moral justification to his actions-- was inherently detrimental to holiness. The believed that in order for the Church to remain holy, it must be kept separate from the State. Those people were called "Separatists," which included the Pilgrims and Puritans.

Between the time the Pilgrims settled in America and the American Revolution, the English Civil War--a war between the Separatists and those who believed in the "Established Church"--had occurred, which solidified the concept of the separation of Church and State in the American colonies.

Roger Williams--the Puritan pastor who founded the first Baptist congregation in America--was also the first to coin and use the phrase, "wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world" in his 1644 landmark treatise "The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution for the Sake of Conscience."

It's no coincidence that Baptist doctrine still concisely enunciates the proposition:

I answered this last night but lost my post. Many, many Christians would take those babies but they would never be allowed to. The president and Planned Parenthood would rather see those babies die than to be saved by someone kinder. They schedule as many abortions on the days when the Christians aren't there as they can. We would never be given one of those babies and Obama, everyone's hero, said that once the mother decides on abortion, the "fetus" (his words, not mine) has no rights. So don't give me any baloney about Christians caring about the baby until it's born. Many Christian churches have pregnancy centers, By the Hand Clubs, adoption programs and they have Angel Tree at Christmas along with Christmas dinners for families where a parent is incarcerated. I'm so sick of liberals calling Christians hypocrites and that is exactly where "sayings" like "Christians only care until the baby is born" come from. That is an untrue generalization. Your president loves Planned Parenthood so much and he must know that Margaret Sanger started it so that the black population would decrease. That, my friend, is hypocrisy.

I don't think I would have liked Roger Williams much or his Baptist Church. I don't have anything against being holy but I am against isolationism. There really aren't too many holy Christians, IMO, and I'm including myself at times. Going to church, speaking Christianese, being baptized, dressing in your Sunday best and attending mid-week prayer meeting doesn't make a person holy. Feeding the hungry, visiting those who are sick or in prison, witnessing to unbelievers about the love of Jesus, being generous and kind and giving the glory to God, fighting for those who are helpless, praying and reading God's Word much, etc., etc., make you holy. I absolutely believe that Christians should stand up for the unborn and whether or not the president changes his mind is up to him. I pray for his salvation and for his impeachment because he is not lawful. I would not try to change his mind, however, because I believe that he is a narcissist and is not able to feel compassion for others. From his behavior during the numerous attempts to pass the Born Alive Infant Protection Act in Illinois, which he thwarted, I just don't think he's capable of caring for the unborn. So I think it's more important to try to save one baby at a time and perhaps change a woman's life for the good.

 

[RDKirk]

I answered this last night but lost my post. Many, many Christians would take those babies but they would never be allowed to. The president and Planned Parenthood would rather see those babies die than to be saved by someone kinder. They schedule as many abortions on the days when the Christians aren't there as they can. We would never be given one of those babies and Obama, everyone's hero, said that once the mother decides on abortion, the "fetus" (his words, not mine) has no rights. So don't give me any baloney about Christians caring about the baby until it's born. Many Christian churches have pregnancy centers, By the Hand Clubs, adoption programs and they have Angel Tree at Christmas along with Christmas dinners for families where a parent is incarcerated. I'm so sick of liberals calling Christians hypocrites and that is exactly where "sayings" like "Christians only care until the baby is born" come from. That is an untrue generalization. Your president loves Planned Parenthood so much and he must know that Margaret Sanger started it so that the black population would decrease. That, my friend, is hypocrisy.

I don't think I've heard anyone at a pregnancy center state that Christians would be glad to take the babies if the mothers carry them to term, and you don't really know what would happen if we all made that stand.

It might show the world the same thing it showed the world 2000 years ago...pagans are the same today as they were then.

I don't think I would have liked Roger Williams much or his Baptist Church. I don't have anything against being holy but I am against isolationism. There really aren't too many holy Christians, IMO, and I'm including myself at times. Going to church, speaking Christianese, being baptized, dressing in your Sunday best and attending mid-week prayer meeting doesn't make a person holy. Feeding the hungry, visiting those who are sick or in prison, witnessing to unbelievers about the love of Jesus, being generous and kind and giving the glory to God, fighting for those who are helpless, praying and reading God's Word much, etc., etc., make you holy. I absolutely believe that Christians should stand up for the unborn and whether or not the president changes his mind is up to him. I pray for his salvation and for his impeachment because he is not lawful. I would not try to change his mind, however, because I believe that he is a narcissist and is not able to feel compassion for others. From his behavior during the numerous attempts to pass the Born Alive Infant Protection Act in Illinois, which he thwarted, I just don't think he's capable of caring for the unborn. So I think it's more important to try to save one baby at a time and perhaps change a woman's life for the good.

Actually, Roger Williams was a foremost evangelist to the Indians of his day--he went "out there" more than anyone else...hardly an isolationist.

He also was the first American Abolitionist and founded the state of Rhode Island...no isolationism going on there. But he did found Rhode Island specifically as a state that would allow total religious freedom.

Here was his point: When the government makes it socially advantageous to be a Christian, and makes it difficult on those who are not Christian, then people who don't really have Christ in their hearts will necessarily pretend to be Christian. And indeed, such a government will always, always, always end up operating against Christ. He had 1200 years of history to prove his case, and his case continues to be proven to this day.

So his point was to let Jesus' words and the words of the apostles be true: Jesus' kingdom is not of this world and we are pilgrims and sojourners in it, not natives.

 

[NorrinRadd]

I could write a lengthy thread on all of my issues with the Christian Right, but I don't really feel like it. I am, however, proud of myself for cleverly naming this thread. You know...since the elephant is the symbol of the Republican Party.

I understand the social issue part of it: gay marriage, abortions.

I never knowingly vote for a candidate who is not Pro-Life. For me all other issues are far below this one.

As for gay marriage, I mostly don't think it's any of da gubmint's biz. I do believe there should be legal protections for those Xian businesses (bakers, photographers, etc.) who refuse to sell their services in support of gay marriages.

What I don't understand is the perpetuation of massive wealth inequality, and the valuing of the rich above the poor, since Jesus was totally a champion of the poor. It's no small stretch of the imagination to say that, if Jesus were to be transplanted to our modern times, he would be some kind of religious socialist.

I think it's a huge stretch. Socialism maximizes government power and minimizes personal liberty. It uses force of law to wrench money from some to throw it at others. Fallen human nature inevitably leads to corruption, with those in positions of power grabbing large amounts for themselves. (Of course this happens in democratic, capitalist nations also, but somewhat less, because the individuals have more freedom to operate in their own self-interest, and the various self-interests tend to balance out better than in an authoritarian regime.)

I think Jesus would decry the leftists, who basically thrive on the politics of envy and division.

Another thing I don't get is the glorification of the military. War is bad. I mean, of course there are such things as a just war, but I think we should do everything we can to prevent wars. Maybe I'm just a silly young idealist?

Yes, you are.

We "glorify" the military because its members take great risks and make great sacrifices to protect the nation and our national interests.

Yes, war is bad. And with all our reliance on drones and high-tech, we're allowing ourselves to become blind and numb to HOW bad. (The classic Trek episode, "A Taste of Armageddon" should be required viewing.) But it is a fact of life on earth that on the whole, civilization is governed by the aggressive use of force. Any time there is a power vacuum, it will be filled. If the U.S. is not the dominant power, someone else will be. Soon China will fill that role. Oh happy day.

Also, the whole gun culture. You know, if Jesus were around today I'm sure he would have a large collection of guns in his basement.

He might. Carpenters are often redneck manly-men. He might enjoy heading out to the shooting range.

And you know, as the God Who commanded the bloody slaughter of the Canaanites and will one day return to slaughter His enemies, He's not exactly squeamish.

And the environment. I'm not sure, don't you think Jesus would want us to protect the environment?

Sure. So what? I don't think He's condone the existence of an overbearing, overreaching, fascist entity such as the EPA to achieve that goal.

And the ridiculous, fervent nationalism. Do you think God has some kind of special destiny for America? We're just a country, like any other country. Nations are a human construct. Do you really think the God of the universe cares about flags and anthems? He doesn't love an American more than a Frenchman or a Mexican or a Nigerian or even a filthy, godless Chinese communist heathen.

Of course nations are human constructs. And humans, being fallen, tend to act in their own self interest as opposed to the interests of others. Groups of humans act in the interest of their own group. Other nations are not going to stop doing that, and neither should we. As to the "fervent" part, that is largely a reaction against the disdain and resentment often shown by others.

It just all makes me facepalm, folks. A lot of Christians claim to love the Bible and the Constitution. But the Constitution is not a religious document. It is a secular document. America really, truly is a secular nation. That is what the Founders intended.

Then the Declaration of Independence was a lie from the beginning, and we should recant it and surrender to Great Britain post haste.

They were sons of the European Enlightenment, a movement that was skeptical of God. In our republic, you aren't supposed to have laws based on a particular religion (gay marriage in mind here).

That was true on the Federal level. But originally, the Founders respected the rights of persons and states (and originally the states had much more independence and sovereignty than they do now). States, counties, towns *could* establish religions, if they so chose.

But yeah...anyone out there agree with me? You've got poor southerners signing on with the party of the rich simply because of religion.

That "party of the rich" thing is kind of a myth. A lot of Wall Streeters, a lot of Silicon Valley, and almost all of Hollywood are Democrats.

Meanwhile, working class people all over the country, not just the South, identify with the Republican party, mostly because it makes at least a perfunctory effort to defend the unborn, as well as private property rights.

And a lot of Republicans don't believe in global warming even though they know absolutely nothing about it.

I believe it is vastly overblown. Many of us remember the greatly hyped doomsday scenarios of Paul Ehrlich 40 or 50 years ago (The Population Bomb, and a soon-coming ice-age). While we may have some concerns about "global warming" -- even though temps have been about static for over a decade -- we have much more concern about the unintended consequences of drastic measures to try to prevent such warming.

 

[Psalm 91]

I never knowingly vote for a candidate who is not Pro-Life. For me all other issues are far below this one.

As for gay marriage, I mostly don't think it's any of da gubmint's biz. I do believe there should be legal protections for those Xian businesses (bakers, photographers, etc.) who refuse to sell their services in support of gay marriages.




I think it's a huge stretch. Socialism maximizes government power and minimizes personal liberty. It uses force of law to wrench money from some to throw it at others. Fallen human nature inevitably leads to corruption, with those in positions of power grabbing large amounts for themselves. (Of course this happens in democratic, capitalist nations also, but somewhat less, because the individuals have more freedom to operate in their own self-interest, and the various self-interests tend to balance out better than in an authoritarian regime.)

I think Jesus would decry the leftists, who basically thrive on the politics of envy and division.




Yes, you are.

We "glorify" the military because its members take great risks and make great sacrifices to protect the nation and our national interests.

Yes, war is bad. And with all our reliance on drones and high-tech, we're allowing ourselves to become blind and numb to HOW bad. (The classic Trek episode, "A Taste of Armageddon" should be required viewing.) But it is a fact of life on earth that on the whole, civilization is governed by the aggressive use of force. Any time there is a power vacuum, it will be filled. If the U.S. is not the dominant power, someone else will be. Soon China will fill that role. Oh happy day.




He might. Carpenters are often redneck manly-men. He might enjoy heading out to the shooting range.

And you know, as the God Who commanded the bloody slaughter of the Canaanites and will one day return to slaughter His enemies, He's not exactly squeamish.




Sure. So what? I don't think He's condone the existence of an overbearing, overreaching, fascist entity such as the EPA to achieve that goal.




Of course nations are human constructs. And humans, being fallen, tend to act in their own self interest as opposed to the interests of others. Groups of humans act in the interest of their own group. Other nations are not going to stop doing that, and neither should we. As to the "fervent" part, that is largely a reaction against the disdain and resentment often shown by others.




Then the Declaration of Independence was a lie from the beginning, and we should recant it and surrender to Great Britain post haste.




That was true on the Federal level. But originally, the Founders respected the rights of persons and states (and originally the states had much more independence and sovereignty than they do now). States, counties, towns *could* establish religions, if they so chose.




That "party of the rich" thing is kind of a myth. A lot of Wall Streeters, a lot of Silicon Valley, and almost all of Hollywood are Democrats.

Meanwhile, working class people all over the country, not just the South, identify with the Republican party, mostly because it makes at least a perfunctory effort to defend the unborn, as well as private property rights.



I believe it is vastly overblown. Many of us remember the greatly hyped doomsday scenarios of Paul Ehrlich 40 or 50 years ago (The Population Bomb, and a soon-coming ice-age). While we may have some concerns about "global warming" -- even though temps have been about static for over a decade -- we have much more concern about the unintended consequences of drastic measures to try to prevent such warming.

Great Post!!!!