The UN?

[chrismon]

I should hope so, considering that you essentially just rephrased what I'm saying. However, private charity has been proven, time and again, to be more effective than the government; so of course, I'm all for limiting the secular government for a variety of different reasons.

Maybe now you can see the issue I am getting at. Private charity, public charity, christian charity, none of them will ever be effective. Christians are not called to be generous to effect poverty, but to be a witness to the Kingdom that is near. Of couse we hope to alleviate suffering when we care for others. Of course! But it is Jesus Christ who defeats death, not us, lest we fool ourselves into thinking we can actually make a difference. Christ has already made the difference - our charge is to live as though it is true.

A social gospel is a wondeful thing - until it becomes an end unto itself and stops focusing on the Cross. Searching for humanly measurable effectiveness is to stop admitting that sufficiency of the Cross.

 

[romanov]

I don't understand why a Christian would be a Libertarian. The religion of other-directedness meets the politics of self-directedness. I just don't see how selflessness and selfishness can work together.

Ok, I'll save you the lesson of the philosophy of John Locke, the beliefs of the founding fathers, etc... God (or Yahweh if you prefer) commands us to do certain things, live a certain way. The quickest example I can come up with, it's the job of the mother and father to educate their children. It's ultimately the responsibility to ensure that his children are educated properly. Well how can we as Christians do that with mandates from the federal government?

The federal government requires that school aged children be taught all kinds of things which are simply not moral and Godly. You know, our children can't pray in school, they can't have Bible study, youth organisations which are Chirstian oriented are being forced out of the schools. The Libertarian perspective is the highest level of government that should have any say in a child's education is the local government.

So what does this mean. I'm going to tell you what it means in a Libertarian society. The local schools in Lansing Michigan may be Muslim schools. And it would be the local citizens of Lansing Michigain which would be paying for their children's educaition. The local schools where I live could very well be Baptist schools. A good real time example of this is the Amish schools in Pennsylvania. These kids who go to these Amish schools are not backwoods rubes who only know how to read the Bible and count to 10. Alot of these kids go to college.

That's just a general idea of what I'm talking about here. I apologise for the brevety and that I haven't given you more examples other than education. Please understand there are alot of posts to answer tonight and I still have to get back to Anchorage tomorrow.

 

[romanov]

While your points for Christians and Libertarians rejecting the UN are valid and applicable, I can't believe that any sane American would support the UN. It is socialist, that is understood, but it is one of the biggest collections of anti-American, anti-freedom bashers around. That any President would ever put American troops under the leadership of these losers and turn our military into a uniformed meals-on-wheels should be punishable as treason.

As a former, long-time Ranger it galls me that fellow Rangers were murdered, desecrated, and their bodies dragged naked through the streets of Somalia while their warlords practice slavery of their own people and condone the murder of any and all Christians. And all of this was done under the control of the UN. Somalia, and for that matter, every other country that the UN has tried to "help" is much worse off because of the UN.

Total agreement! I had one of my friends who was a Master Sergeant killed in Somalia. I absolutely could not believe that the 10th Mountain Division was put under the direct command of the Pakastanis and then when Clinton tucked tail and ran, I knew that was sending the wrong message to the bad guys of the world.

 

[romanov]

Essentially you have claimed that the work of the Gospel can be more effective if we get the government to behave or organize under a certain set of priciples. If you offer them power over the people of God to do the work of the Gospel, you've got some confusion regarding Who is actually in charge of this world. I'm sure you do not think that Jesus failed when he died by the hands of the Romans and the Jewish leadership?

Has it occured to you that we can love one another irregardless of the government's stance on charity and social work... and that such work's effectiveness is the property of God and not human, even Christian, effort?

Have you read John H. Yoder's "The Politics of Jesus"? I think you might enjoy it. Its a great exegesis (mostly of Luke), looking into Jesus' (and so the Church's) relationship with human governments. It brings to the forefront the fundamental difference between the missions of the Church and that of human government, as well as highlighting the error of the Church in fooling itself by thinking that these two Powers, which are essentially in total conflict, can serve one another.

Another book, that's an easier read, is Lee C. Camp's "Mere Discipleship". His book largely addresses on Yoder's topics but in a less critical manner, instead showing the direct connections between Yoder's ideas and christian discipleship. This one is actually a really fun read.

I'd been thinking about your post all day and I had this big long elloquent thing in my mind to post back to you, but when I saw what atlasshrugged posted she pretty much hit the nail on the head.

Government shouldn't legislate morality. They can and should at times codify established morality. Now that's an extremely fine line but there are a lot of things that are, indeed, a fine line. Let me give you a synopsis of Libertarian thoughts and ideas. You have the right to do as you please provided it does not deprive me or others of our right to life, liberty, and property through force or fraud. So of course murder, which is a moral ethos, and one of the Ten Commandments, would be codified into law. As well as theft, armed robbery, breach of contract... the list goes on.

When is comes to social programs and that ilk, God commands us to help the poor. Why? Because the Bible also teaches us that the poor will always be with us. I know the reason tells us to help the poor. It does 2 things: 1.) it helps the poor; 2 and more importantly it builds character in us. It teaches us, the ones doing the helping, of the importance of following God's word and the trivialness of worldly goods in the end. If the government takes the money out of your check by force, and gives it to whoever may or may not be deserving, how is character being built in the giver? And really since the government has no vested interest in actually helping the poor, who gets helped? The answer to both is no one.

 

[romanov]

ALL Laws are an attempt to force morality. The only other choice (in a world full of non-Christians) is anarchy. The only real question open to us then, is whose view of morality are those laws going to come from. More often than not, if you trace the original reasons for a law being suggested and passed, there was usually a good reason that the law was suggested. The process of taking it from a bill to a Law is where much of the trouble enters in.

Ok, at the point of being redundant, You have the right to do as you please as long as it does not deprive me or others of our right to life, liberty and property through force or fraud. This is not exact and there are exceptions (maybe). The problem is IMO the founding fathers were smart but they didn't go far enough. There shouldn't have just been a covenent between the people and the government but also between the people as well. The other problem is that legislators have too much time on their hands and they have discovered that through pandering and providing bread and circuses to the people, the can increase their power, their prestige and their privelege.

 

[romanov]

Maybe now you can see the issue I am getting at. Private charity, public charity, christian charity, none of them will ever be effective. Christians are not called to be generous to effect poverty, but to be a witness to the Kingdom that is near. Of couse we hope to alleviate suffering when we care for others. Of course! But it is Jesus Christ who defeats death, not us, lest we fool ourselves into thinking we can actually make a difference. Christ has already made the difference - our charge is to live as though it is true.

A social gospel is a wondeful thing - until it becomes an end unto itself and stops focusing on the Cross. Searching for humanly measurable effectiveness is to stop admitting that sufficiency of the Cross.

Ok, a lot of folks who are Christians in the forum pages support the UN as a form of social gospel. By "helping the poor," "eradicating disease," "providing clean water," "nurses," that kind of thing. Their thinking, I suppose, is helping to solve the physical ills of the world. But my point is the UN is actually paving the way for the Anti Christ. So again I repost the question, How can a Chistian morally support and defend the UN? To me it would be like a Christian buying Hustler magazine to help those poor women who are just trying to make a living by selling nude pictures of themselves.

 

[intricatic]

Link to another post.

This is why I'm all for limiting government. However, it's important to understand that government is a means to an end, and that end is not God's end. I think I posted that in the wrong thread.

 

[Jipsah]

I've never understood why Christians would support the UN. Being a Libertarian I don't understand why ANYONE would support the UN (United Nations, just to clarify).

From a Christian standpoint, what difference does it make?

Being that the Anti Christ will bring the world under the rule of one government divided into ten kingdoms

That's what some folks believe. The Bible doesn't explicitly say any such thing.

 

[Dmckay]

Total agreement! I had one of my friends who was a Master Sergeant killed in Somalia. I absolutely could not believe that the 10th Mountain Division was put under the direct command of the Pakastanis and then when Clinton tucked tail and ran, I knew that was sending the wrong message to the bad guys of the world.

And we are still reaping the "benefits" of of those spineless actions. David was the only one who ever attacked an individual who he had (at least by human standards) absolutely no logical possibility of defeating. When the U.S. is militarily strong and willing to use that strength, no one is willing to take us on.

It's kind of like someone who is an expert in martial arts. They don't feel a need to be showing their abilities all the time when they have self confidence in their abilities. That self-confidence in their ability to defeat an attacker is projected to the attacker and discourages the attack before it is initiated. Bullies only attack those that they are sure they can intimidate and defeat.

 

[Dmckay]

Ok, at the point of being redundant, You have the right to do as you please as long as it does not deprive me or others of our right to life, liberty and property through force or fraud. This is not exact and there are exceptions (maybe). The problem is IMO the founding fathers were smart but they didn't go far enough. There shouldn't have just been a covenent between the people and the government but also between the people as well. The other problem is that legislators have too much time on their hands and they have discovered that through pandering and providing bread and circuses to the people, the can increase their power, their prestige and their privelege.

You'll get no argument from me about your observations. But I don't believe that it is the fault of the Founding Fathers. It is more the work of liberal politicians who have managed to stack the courts and turned the Constitution into a "living document" that means whatever they can interpret it to mean.

 

[chrismon]

But my point is the UN is actually paving the way for the Anti Christ. So again I repost the question, How can a Chistian morally support and defend the UN?

That's a question raised out of a baseless assumption. First, its a question from a decision on scriptural exegesis (i.e. from Revelation) for which we cannot know until it happens. Remember that throughout history interpretation after interpration of the symbols and time tables of Revelation have been masked over the current state of affairs of the world to show that the End it immenent. I do not think that we, the people of today, have any better handle. While you may think the UN is the organization from which the Beast weilds power (or something like that), you are as sincere as any other theologian of the past.

Why one supports anything is because it desires to do something that Jesus Christ desired: in this case to love the poor. Were the Church to disassociate itself from any other group or person burdened by sinful distraction from the call of Christ, the Church would not only be utterly isolating itself from the world (perhaps becoming fully ascetic!) but would have to disband, because it, too, suffers from many of the same sins. The difference is that the Church has been chosen by God to be his people, and it is in our existance in this world that we serve the worlds true needs and so witness to the world the Good News. If Jesus Christ has defeated, through the Cross, all the powers and principalities which rail against him, even those of the future, we are free to plod along and love people, even in the midst of sinful organization - not matter our interpretation of the future. The ONLY interpreation of the future we know for sure is that Jesus Christ was, is and will be King of Kings, victorious overall. So don't trouble yourself with the future and who might be this bad guy or that bad guy. If someone is loving the poor, then it is good.

To me it would be like a Christian buying Hustler magazine to help those poor women who are just trying to make a living by selling nude pictures of themselves.

No offense, this example makes no sense. Women who "work" for Hustler magazine are getting money for selling their bodies in a way which serves the fallenness of this world. This is no help to those women at all - well, unless you think money is their savior.

Perhaps you can choose a better example for what you are trying to say.

 

[romanov]

Link to another post.

This is why I'm all for limiting government. However, it's important to understand that government is a means to an end, and that end is not God's end. I think I posted that in the wrong thread.

Alot of times when I am talking to Christians about the need for limited government, they usually drag out this, "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" thing. They usually miss one major, major point.

How is that passage affected when we are, in fact, Caesar? The pramble of the Constitution of the United States say's "WE THE PEOPLE,...." The philosophy of this country is one of individual sovereignty. In simple terms, we are in charge of our on lives. We only give that power to the government necessary for them to protect our individual right to LIFE, LIBERTY AND PROPERTY. And to do those things that we can't do as individuals like build a highway, maintain a port, and prevent foreign invasion as well as the judicial system, those things necessary to run the government; you get the idea. So when the government takes my money at the point of a gun and gives it to a woman to have her 3rd abortion, they are in effect forcing me to compromise not only my principles but my Christian beliefs.

For those reasons I agree with you. But what I do want to know is what you mean by "government is a means to an end?"

 

[romanov]

From a Christian standpoint, what difference does it make?

Well, as a Christian, I try not to do anything which is destructive to another human being unless they are trying to deprive me of my life, liberty or property; basically self defense.

As Christians, we shouldn't support abortion on demand. We shouldn't support gay marriage. And we shouldn't support the unGodly mission of the UN. Now whether or not the UN exists with or without our support; that's not the discussion I'm trying to make here. Again the point is, why should we support the UN.

That's what some folks believe. The Bible doesn't explicitly say any such thing.

Ok, it doesn't specifically state that he will ride around in jets, drive cars and eat peanut butter and banana sandwiches. But I'm sure he will, being that peanut butter and banana sandwiches are the most delicious things on Earth. All kidding aside, follow the link below. This guy gives a pretty good argument to the idea that the Anti Christ will rise out of the UN.

http://www.christianforums.com/t3153170-explanation-of-666-by-revelation.html

 

[romanov]

That's a question raised out of a baseless assumption. First, its a question from a decision on scriptural exegesis (i.e. from Revelation) for which we cannot know until it happens. Remember that throughout history interpretation after interpration of the symbols and time tables of Revelation have been masked over the current state of affairs of the world to show that the End it immenent. I do not think that we, the people of today, have any better handle. While you may think the UN is the organization from which the Beast weilds power (or something like that), you are as sincere as any other theologian of the past.

I wouldn't call it a baseless assumption. I don't mean to sound arogant here but smarter men and women than me are saying the same thing. Now, I understand what you are saying that smarter men than me in the past, all the way to 2 days after the book of Revelation was "published," have been saying now is the time. Doesn't the Bible say that the rapture would occur, "like a thief in the night" and that we should always be on our guard for it? But the question still remains, because people in Christian Forums have all kinds of UN symbols in their avaratars and what not. I'm hoping that one of these folks will stumble across this thread and offer some insight. But I don't want to be rude and bust into one of their threads like a bull in a china shop asking this question.

In case you missed it:http://www.christianforums.com/t3153170-explanation-of-666-by-revelation.html

Why one supports anything is because it desires to do something that Jesus Christ desired: in this case to love the poor.

Ok, I'm going to ask this question. This is getting off the point a bit, but what the heck. I think God wants us to help the poor. And I mentioned this earlier, but I think the cheif reason is because, in the end, it actually builds character in us. That goes a little further than storing your treasures in Heaven but I think that, in the end, it helps us to be better people while we are here on Earth. Now, if you go before a senate sub-commitee for all the World to see, and beg them to take the shirt off someone else's back are you doing God's work? Or are you doing God's work by giving a man your spare cloak? And doing it in secret? What say you?

Were the Church to disassociate itself from any other group or person burdened by sinful distraction from the call of Christ, the Church would not only be utterly isolating itself from the world (perhaps becoming fully ascetic!) but would have to disband, because it, too, suffers from many of the same sins.

And Paul in I Corinthians 5:9 & 10 said: "9 I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people. 10 Not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world." NIV

In other words, even Paul, back in the day realised this. I'm not saying that you should have nothing to do with the "world" at all. That is virtually impossible. What I am saying is that Christians should not have more than a casual contact with these types of people/organisations. And supporting the UN by using their symbol or sending money to UNCEF is much more than a casual relationship.

The difference is that the Church has been chosen by God to be his people, and it is in our existance in this world that we serve the worlds true needs and so witness to the world the Good News. If Jesus Christ has defeated, through the Cross, all the powers and principalities which rail against him, even those of the future, we are free to plod along and love people, even in the midst of sinful organization - not matter our interpretation of the future. The ONLY interpreation of the future we know for sure is that Jesus Christ was, is and will be King of Kings, victorious overall. So don't trouble yourself with the future and who might be this bad guy or that bad guy. If someone is loving the poor, then it is good.

Ok, if you love the poor, then how is aiding the UN expressing that love? Shouldn't you express that love yourself in God's name? The United States donates tons of food to the hungry around the world and they give it to the UN to dispurse. The UN takes this food at great expense and repackages it into boxes and bags that say UN instead of US all to promote their agenda which is one world government and the UN will become the seat of the Anti Christ. See above.

So the UN is actually doing two things here. They are taking credit where credit is NOT due; effectively a stolen PR campaign. And they are not giving glory to God. And my wife just pointed out that they are also taking away my ability to be able to help those same people in God's name. So again, back to the original question. Why would a Christian support the UN?

No offense, this example makes no sense. Women who "work" for Hustler magazine are getting money for selling their bodies in a way which serves the fallenness of this world. This is no help to those women at all - well, unless you think money is their savior.

Perhaps you can choose a better example for what you are trying to say.

Uh, yeah. I know. I was tired. Sorry. Better example....Hmmm. Given two choices. You have two men of charity. One wants to take your money and increase his power, prestige and privilege by "helping the poor," "ending wars," blah, blah, blah. The second man wants to take your money, help the poor, relieve suffering, and spread the knowledge of the Gift of God through the Son Jesus Christ. This man does not go on the nightly news and proclaim what a great and wonderful giver he is. He does not walk through the streets with his face downcast but does all this with cheer and little fanfare. Who will you give your dollar and support to? Make your decision and choose wisely.

 

[romanov]

I guess the thread died? Bummer!

 

[intricatic]

Alot of times when I am talking to Christians about the need for limited government, they usually drag out this, "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" thing. They usually miss one major, major point.

How is that passage affected when we are, in fact, Caesar? The pramble of the Constitution of the United States say's "WE THE PEOPLE,...." The philosophy of this country is one of individual sovereignty. In simple terms, we are in charge of our on lives. We only give that power to the government necessary for them to protect our individual right to LIFE, LIBERTY AND PROPERTY. And to do those things that we can't do as individuals like build a highway, maintain a port, and prevent foreign invasion as well as the judicial system, those things necessary to run the government; you get the idea. So when the government takes my money at the point of a gun and gives it to a woman to have her 3rd abortion, they are in effect forcing me to compromise not only my principles but my Christian beliefs.

For those reasons I agree with you. But what I do want to know is what you mean by "government is a means to an end?"

Look at the history of Western Democracy and tell me what it's unifying goal has been since conception. What dirrection is it headed? What, historically, drives it? What is the one common principle that all forms of government in human history share?

 

[romanov]

Look at the history of Western Democracy

The history for Western Democracy is the same as the history for any Democracy. Once the people discover they can vote themselves bread and circuses, they will do so until there is no bread nor circuses left. The founding fathers knew this and in no where in the Constitution of the United States will you find the word democracy. We are NOT a democracy. Politicians are happy to let you believe this. Because they use it to increase their power, prestige and privilege.

and tell me what it's unifying goal has been since conception.

Well I can tell you the goal of the Founding Fathers. Well most of them anyway. Their goal was to create several sovereign states that had power within their borders to do those things necessary to carry out the governance of the people of those states and to act as a check to the local government. The federal government was to handle interstate relations and insure the states respected the rights of their people. The highest level of governance in the end was the individual. The next highest would be local governance be it county or parish, then state, then federal. With all four levels, checking and balancing each other.

What dirrection is it headed? What, historically, drives it? What is the one common principle that all forms of government in human history share?

Power, prestige and privelige. In the end, with an illiterate populus with no education into the philosphy of how our country was to work, we will slide back into tyranny.

 

[David Brider]

I've never understood why Christians would support the UN. Being a Libertarian I don't understand why ANYONE would support the UN (United Nations, just to clarify).

First the Christian question. I strongly feel that the end times have yet to happen but may very well be upon us now. And I understand that some people believe that the end times prophesies are just an allegory, have already happened, started at the end of WWI...etc. There are a whole host of theories dealing with the end times. But just for the sake of argument, I want to pose this question. Being that the Anti Christ will bring the world under the rule of one government divided into ten kingdoms, why would any Christian support the UN? I don't support the European Union (which is the first kingdom, I believe). I don't support what Bush is doing with the North American Union (which would be kingdom 2). There is already talk about an Asian Union, a South American Union, and an African Union. It just seems to me that Christians would avoid the UN like the plague.

Well, the UN isn't a government - all the nations represented by the UN still have their own governments.

As for whether it ties into the end times as depicted in Revelation - possibly, possibly not. Where two or three New Testament scholars are gathered together, you'll find about a dozen different interpretations of Revelation, and frankly I long ago learned not to let it bother me. We'll see how it pans out in the long run. In the meantime, international groupings - be they the EU, the UN, or whatever - seem to be a very positive idea, with the various nations (and ideally their citizens) co-operating instead of competing, befriending instead of feuding and fighting. And I think - partly but not entirely because of my Christian faith - that that's a commendable ideal.

Second, as a Libertarian, I believe that the sole purpose of Government is to protect the individual.

I'm not really familiar with Libertarianism, but I don't really agree with protecting the individual as being the sole purpose of government. I'd've thought the main purpose of government was just that - to govern. Surely the whole of the community it governs should be its concern, not merely individuals?

The UN is a Marxist organization. It was founded by Marxists and the UN charter is a Marxist document.

It is? Could you provide some documentation of that? FYI, here's the text of the Charter.

Marxism and Christianity are diametrically opposed to each other.

That's a bit of an overstatement. Marxism may be rather an extreme form of left-wing philosophy, but much of the basis of Christian ethics fit more comfortably within a left-wing framework than within a right-wing one, so the difference is more one of degree than of direction.

David.

 

[intricatic]

I'm not really familiar with Libertarianism, but I don't really agree with protecting the individual as being the sole purpose of government. I'd've thought the main purpose of government was just that - to govern. Surely the whole of the community it governs should be its concern, not merely individuals?

"Merely individuals"? Huh? Wouldn't that essentially imply the community, or do you think it means protecting one single individual in exclusion from the rest?

But I disagree; the community is entirely composed of individuals. The government is highly prone to abuse when it falls into lines of thinking about society as anything but individuals.

 

[johnd]

I have found that the only legitimate use for the UN is it makes a great sound effect when playing with toy cars...

UN-NUNUNUNUNUN...