Theocracy In America--Who wants this?

[Agnapostate]

Jesus seems to function as a servant to God the Father more than anything else. If the Angel of the Lord is interpreted as being the pre-incarnate Christ, he certainly also seems to have also taken a far harder edge in his pre-incarnate appearances.

“Behold, I send an Angel before you to keep you in the way and to bring you into the place which I have prepared. Beware of Him and obey His voice; do not provoke Him, for He will not pardon your transgressions; for My name is in Him. But if you indeed obey His voice and do all that I speak, then I will be an enemy to your enemies and an adversary to your adversaries. For My Angel will go before you and bring you in to the Amorites and the Hittites and the Perizzites and the Canaanites and the Hivites and the Jebusites; and I will cut them off.

If we were to cherrypick portions of the Bible in the same manner that many Christians do, we might very well use this verse to claim that Jesus was never intended to forgive or pardon transgressions. That verse could certainly be exaggerated as much as they exaggerate other portions of the Bible.

 

[Agnapostate]

As Mohamed contradicts himself many times, especially in his description of Jesus, I'll go with what I know. I support all those who follow the Koran though, for the reason previously stated.

Mohammed contradicts himself many times, and there are errors in the Qur'an, but that is clearly the case with the Bible also...not only in the cases of the aforementioned passages of Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11, but in other areas also. The pastoral epistles of 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus, for instance, are generally not regarded as having been legitimately written by Paul. More troubling for Christians is the fact that the Comma Johanneum of 1 John 5:7-8, the most explicit statement of the Trinity that exists in the Scripture, is also evidently a later addition.

 

[frazzledgear]

"Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ -- to have dominion in civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness. But it is dominion we are after. Not just a voice. It is dominion we are after. Not just influence. It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time. It is dominion we are after. World conquest. That's what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish. We must win the world with the power of the Gospel. And we must never settle for anything less... Thus, Christian politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land -- of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ."

(From The Changing of the Guard: Biblical Principles for Political Action by George Grant, published in 1987 by Dominion Press)
American Theocracy: Who Wants to Turn America into a Theocracy?

A question came up about theocracy in Israel on another thread. Israel was founded as a theocracy.

What concerns me more is that some Americans want the US to be a Christian theocracy--which goes against everything the founders intended. I thought this may be an interesting topic.

What do you think?

Gimme a break on this kind of bs. Conservative Christians are not the new phenomenon in this country -they have always been here and until the last 30-40 years or so, in the majority. They didn't create a theocracy in the past, when they get elected they didn't try to create a theocracy then and they don't want a theocracy in the future. You under the impression that Christians today are somehow MORE conservative than Christians were at the time of our founding? LOL

A theocracy is a government that rules in accordance to eccliastical law -which means it rules in accordance with the religious laws and rules of a specific religion.

I'm a little tired of people pretending that Christianity is one religion -as if NATURALLY they would all agree on the ecclesiastical laws of which denomination and branch of Christianity would be running this theocracy, right? Will this theocracy you worry all Christians secretly want to see imposed here be run in accordance to the ecclesiastical law of the Catholic Church? Or Episcopal? Methodist? Mormon? Baptist? These are all some of the major denominations in this country accounting for millions and millions of people -but these churches all have strong disagreements with each other about the other's ecclesiastical laws and rules you know. In addition to some of their basic religious beliefs. To say nothing of the disagreements they also have with the other 199 or so branches and denominations that also exist in the world. Which is why they all splintered apart in the first place. LOL

US Christians of just about any denomination you want to name - know what the far more conservative founders also knew. The only way to protect the religious rights of everyone is with a secular government -never with a theocracy since that elevates a single religion above all others. And Christianity is not a single religion. At the time of the founding, different denominations of Christianity were considered to be totally different religions -not the same one. There were no Muslims, no Buddhists and no groups of self-avowed atheists here at that time. There were only around 200 Jews here at that time -nearly everyone else belonged to some denomination of Christianity. All considered to be totally different religions. Apparently a lot of non-Christians don't realize this, but most Christians even now consider denominations other than their own to be different religions too -and not interchangeable with their own. A Baptist would not only insist that Catholicism is a different religion, many would insist it isn't really a Christian religion. While the majority of both Catholics and Baptists (among others) would agree that Mormonism isn't really a Christian religion. But sure, everyone lumped under "Christianity" would all magically agree on which denomination's ecclesiastical law would rule a theocracy -on top of actually believing a theocracy is a desirable thing? ROFL

The left in particular fails to appreciate the fact that our secular government was born from the tenets of Christianity in the first place. Something most Christians do know. And something the founders did as well -and specifically said so.

I know a whole lot of Christians from a wide variety of Christian religions -but not ONE, regardless of the denomination -who desires on any level to turn the US into a theocracy. Never met one yet. But they do want our system of government to be THIS one and THIS one only, with an unbastardized Constitution so it doesn't end up as yet one more imitation of a historically failed system.

Never heard of this Grant -but Googled him to check on where he is coming from with these kinds of statements. It turns out he's a Canadian and not a US citizen. In addition, by reading just a bit more from him, its pretty obvious that when he speaks of "conquering", he doesn't mean by force and violence. He means winning over the the hearts and opinions of others. Not waging a military battle or holy war. A lot of non-Christians apparently don't know this fact about Christianity - but the Reformation rules out forced conversion and the notion of "Killing for Christ" as legitimate Christian endeavors -FOREVER. You have no fear from hordes of "radical" machete-wielding Christians who have somehow also rejected some of the very basic tenets of Christianity entirely.

But trying to win over the hearts, minds and opinions of others within the political process -as he was clearly referring to here and in other statements - is the right of every group in this country. And in case you haven't noticed, it is the same thing the far left has been trying to do since the '20s. Its ok for THEM to do so within the political process - but not any other groups or just not Christians or what? If it is a Christian referring to trying to win over the hearts and opinions of others, THEN its scary to you? I suggest you go read the platform statements of the ACLU founders then if you want to get good and scared.

This guy's statements are made in reference to encouraging his church members to become more politically active as well as spreading God's Word -as many Christian denominations believe they are obligated to do anyway.

But the beauty of our system is that absolutely no one has to listen to him if they choose not to. And he still won't cut off anyone's head.

 

[KittenKoder]

Frazzled made a good point ... weird. Many (even a lot of christians) think they are all the same, but they are not. However, the founders did not want even their own religion to be the dominant one in the country, it just started off that way.

 

[KittenKoder]

This is just an extra post because for some reason my browser reposts twice sometimes.

 

[glockmail]

Mohammed contradicts himself many times, and there are errors in the Qur'an, but that is clearly the case with the Bible also...not only in the cases of the aforementioned passages of Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11, but in other areas also. The pastoral epistles of 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus, for instance, are generally not regarded as having been legitimately written by Paul. More troubling for Christians is the fact that the Comma Johanneum of 1 John 5:7-8, the most explicit statement of the Trinity that exists in the Scripture, is also evidently a later addition.

Errors, even if they are such, are not contradictions. The Bible was written by men in some cases under God's dictate but mainly under God's inspiration, and men are fallible. I'm talking about well-established passages that contradict other well-established passages, as are numerous in the Koran.

 

[Southpaw]

In John 7:53-8:11, a story is relayed of the scribes and the Pharisees capturing a woman found in the act of adultery. They bring her before Jesus and ask what ought to be done with her. Jesus proceeds to stoop over and write on the ground. He then asks that he among the Pharisees and scribes who is without sin cast the first stone. The Pharisees and scribes then leave, and Jesus forgives the woman.

This story is not found in either Codex Vaticanus or Codex Sinaiticus, and was not written by John, but was likely added later by a scribe recounting an oral tale. Hence, the book of John is flawed and not "infallible," which casts doubt on its "divine inspiration."

Interestingly enough, some new finds in Egypt show church fathers in the 3rd, 4th, and 5th centuries to refer to the Pericope Adulterae. Check out the following two links.

Jesus and the woman taken in adultery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

John 7:53-8:11 -- Is it Authentic?

The second link seems fairly convincing to me, especially from a textual analysis point of view. Luke had an interesting way of writing and the use of somewhat unusual words/phrases is at least decent evidence.

All that being said, I'm comfortable with the concept that it was in the earlier manuscripts but was removed for fear of sanctioning adultery.

According to Jewish understanding, we are all carved out from under the Throne of God with the blade of self will.

I'm not familiar with this concept. Please explain and give supporting evidence.

This may be a bit off topic but your statement raises a question. If Jesus is God, Jesus also implied at all who follow him will be like Jesus or even greater.

If I remember correctly, He said we would do even greater things than He did. Depending on how you want to interpret that, the entire body of Christ has.

This is important to me because if this is true, then this is where there is common ground with Buddhism.

I don't think the standard interpretation gives much room for common ground with Buddhism.

Honestly, what you are describing is the Jews interpretation of Jesus' words. I don't read these words and hear Jesus saying that he is God.

There may be other scriptures that are clearer in the claim that Jesus is God.

I'll agree that it doesn't seem overly convincing in English. However, it is important to realize that Jesus said it in Hebrew. He very clearly broke the pattern of the words in the sentence to invoke the name of God. He took God's name, a very significant act to the Jews which Jesus was, and then used it for himself. The Pharisees reacted the way they did because they understood what He was claiming. He said what He did because that is what He meant.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Go to the Universal Torah Network on the web, and check out the series "The Way of God", and you'll find it there, the concept of us being carved out from under God's Throne.

 

[ABikerSailor]

This may be a bit off topic but your statement raises a question. If Jesus is God, Jesus also implied at all who follow him will be like Jesus or even greater.

Is it safe to assume he meant that all Christians may be one with God, no separation from God?

This is important to me because if this is true, then this is where there is common ground with Buddhism.

Actually, there is a part in the Bible when Jesus is talking to his disciples, I believe it was just before He left them. He told them that He wanted them all to go forth and spread the Word. He also told them that He hoped they would be able to do it better and bigger than He did.

Is it safe to assume that all Christians may be one with God? Yep. Matter of fact, that is one of the things Jesus was referring to when He said that the Father and I are One. One of the things that He was talking about was that our souls actually ARE a small piece of God, placed in this body, which is where the conflict arises......the struggle between our God head (soul, or the electricity in our bodies), and our animal nature (physical body, carried in the blood). The Jews refer to it as the yetzer harrah and the yetzer hartov.

Now......if you've got a small piece of God in you, then it is a pretty fair conclusion to say that you and God are one. I mean....look at it this way......the electricity that runs your computer is the same that runs your television, and all the other things in your house. The electricity used for the computer ISN'T the same that is used for the television, as they are separated by wires and plugs. Can you separate electricity? Only with proper circuits. Can you differentiate between the electricity that is going to go to the computer and the electricity that goes to the TV? No, so in that sense the electricity is one with itself.

Same illustration works with a river. Can you separate the waters into differing parts (and know exactly which part) is going to go to the ocean, or the ponds or lakes? No. Can you separate it with a glass for drinking? Yes.

So, in a round about way, all three theologies (Christian, Jewish and Buddhist), share the same ideas about the soul.

 

[Agnapostate]

Errors, even if they are such, are not contradictions. The Bible was written by men in some cases under God's dictate but mainly under God's inspiration, and men are fallible. I'm talking about well-established passages that contradict other well-established passages, as are numerous in the Koran.

There could be errors in the Bible that clearly contradict with a stated doctrine. For instance, Jesus's statement in Mark 4:31 that the mustard seed was smaller than all other seeds on earth was a clear contradiction of his alleged omniscience, for it was obviously untrue.

Another instance might be in Mark 2:23-27, when the Pharisees challenged him because his disciples were plucking heads of grain, which was unlawful on the Sabbath. Jesus then replies, “Have you never read what David did when he was in need and hungry, he and those with him: how he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the showbread, which is not lawful to eat except for the priests, and also gave some to those who were with him?” The only problem is that according to the text of the incident he cites, (1 Samuel 21:1-6), it is Ahimelech, not his son Abiathar, who is the high priest, which is a clear contradiction.

Or we might consider the contradiction between the incident recounted in Acts 9:26, in which Paul attempted to join the disciples in Jerusalem after departing from Damascus but was not admitted because of his Christian hunting past, as opposed to his statement in Galatians 1:17 that he had never gone to them at all.

Perhaps more damning is the fact that the Gospel of Mark, (which was likely the first Gospel written), recounts that the Passover had started before Jesus was killed, (Mark 14:12 & 15:25), and that the "first day of unleavened bread" (Nisan 14) had occurred, whereas the Gospel of John claims that Jesus had been crucified prior to the consumption of the Passover meal. (John 19:14). In addition, in Mark 15:25, Mark claims that Jesus was crucified in "the third hour," whereas John claims in John 19:14 that it was "about the sixth hour." Even if we were to assume that John used the Roman method of reckoning time rather than the Jewish method, this still presents a chronological difficulty in that Mark's "third hour" would have been about 9:00 AM, whereas John's "sixth hour" would have been about 6:00 AM.

Now, Christians do have a traditional, (if convoluted), response to part of this contradiction, however, and I shall be curious to see if you shall repeat it.

 

[Agnapostate]

Interestingly enough, some new finds in Egypt show church fathers in the 3rd, 4th, and 5th centuries to refer to the Pericope Adulterae. Check out the following two links.

Jesus and the woman taken in adultery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

John 7:53-8:11 -- Is it Authentic?

The second link seems fairly convincing to me, especially from a textual analysis point of view. Luke had an interesting way of writing and the use of somewhat unusual words/phrases is at least decent evidence.

All that being said, I'm comfortable with the concept that it was in the earlier manuscripts but was removed for fear of sanctioning adultery.

I don't know which "earlier manuscripts" you believe it was in, but it is still rather clear that the story was neither written by John nor an original passage in the Gospel of John. Hence, even if the original text of the Gospel was divinely inspired, we don't have access to the original text, merely a flawed text.

 

[editec]

We're already a theocracy.

The Priests at the Temple of Banking (the FED) demand that we worship Mammon or starve.

 

[RodISHI]

We're already a theocracy.

The Priests at the Temple of Banking (the FED) demand that we worship Mammon or starve.

 

[Southpaw]

I don't know which "earlier manuscripts" you believe it was in, but it is still rather clear that the story was neither written by John nor an original passage in the Gospel of John. Hence, even if the original text of the Gospel was divinely inspired, we don't have access to the original text, merely a flawed text.

Read the Wikipedia link. It was referred to multiple times by early Church fathers.

I don't think it was originally in John. I think it was originally in Luke.

Am I bothered by that discrepancy? Well, the anal-retentive part of my nature certainly is. The Christian side of me certainly isn't.

 

[Agnapostate]

Read the Wikipedia link. It was referred to multiple times by early Church fathers.

I don't think it was originally in John. I think it was originally in Luke.

Am I bothered by that discrepancy? Well, the anal-retentive part of my nature certainly is. The Christian side of me certainly isn't.

I never denied that it was a true story; in fact, there's really no way to tell. My contention was that it clearly wasn't originally a part of the book of John, and that's clearly true. That fact alone affects the concept of our current Scripture being divinely inspired.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Errors, even if they are such, are not contradictions. The Bible was written by men in some cases under God's dictate but mainly under God's inspiration, and men are fallible. I'm talking about well-established passages that contradict other well-established passages, as are numerous in the Koran.

One of the reasons that the Q'aran is so contradictory, is that there is NO ESTABLISHED ORDER whatsoever in it, it's all mixed up, as well as the fact that a whole bunch of people contributed their own little interpretation of what they thought Mohammed was saying, as well as put in a little of their own agenda. Did you know that the word "arabic" in Hebrew means mixed up?

As far as the Bible? First 5 books were supposedly written by God and given to Moses on Mt. Sianai, which future generations copied. Incidentally, that is where "it shall not be changed one jot or tittle" came from, as that is part of the Hebrew alphabet (jots and tittles), and when they copied the Torah, EVERY copy was exactly like the others. Matter of fact, when Rome wanted copies of the Torah, they lined up 70 Jewish Rabbis, who wrote it down. Every last one of them was identical. The Romans were surprised because their own scholars were incapable of such a thing.

The New Testament? Well.....various copies of various books were used in various places, interpreted differently, and re-written with changes. New finds are continually happening (Dead Sea Scrolls, Gospel of Judas, etc), so we are continually changing our understanding.

Might explain why there are so many militant Christians who fight each other. Ever see a Northern Baptist and a Southern Baptist go at it? Funny thing is, they are BOTH using the same f-ing book, but are going at it hammer and tongs over what the interpretation is about the words.

Same thing with the Book of Mormon, but the difference here is that the Mormons wanted to have their own little slice of the pie, so their "prophet" went and used Christianity as a framework, threw in a touch of Judaism, and then added his own myths.

And......FWIW.......I trust what a Rabbi told me about prophecy, he told me that unless you're Jewish, you are incapable of being a prophet. However, there is a loophole.....become a B'Nei Noach.

 

[Agnapostate]

Can you be a female Jewish prophet?

 

[Southpaw]

I never denied that it was a true story; in fact, there's really no way to tell. My contention was that it clearly wasn't originally a part of the book of John, and that's clearly true. That fact alone affects the concept of our current Scripture being divinely inspired.

If I publish a new Bible that starts with John and then goes Mark-Luke-Matthew, could I still claim it was divinely inspired?

 

[Southpaw]

Can you be a female Jewish prophet?

There were a few of them in the OT.

 

[Agnapostate]

If I publish a new Bible that starts with John and then goes Mark-Luke-Matthew, could I still claim it was divinely inspired?

You couldn't, because the claims of divine inspiration are false to begin with. Regardless, changing the order of Biblical books is different from changing their content. I also notice that you haven't addressed any of the other problems that I've brought up.

There were a few of them in the OT.

I'm asking ABikerSailor. I know what there were. I'm curious to see his response.