Theocracy In America--Who wants this?

[Southpaw]

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.

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.

I agree that Christ sometimes pops up in the OT as an 'Angel of the Lord' but that is not to say that every 'Angel of the Lord' in the OT is Christ Himself. Do you have any evidence that this one is?

I've never seen where Christian theologians suspect that it was a Christophany.

 

[sky dancer]

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.

Dominionists exist. Christians who want theocracy exist. They are quite open about it. Some of them consider George W Bush the first 'regent'. Bush thought himself selected by God to be President, remember?

Put your head in the sand if you choose to. I'm not planning on doing so. I favor freedom of religion in America.

I bet you haven't bothered to go into any of the links I provided and read what they say. The evidence is there. The groups are named.

 

[glockmail]

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.

What you claim to be damning contradictions I see as minor differences that can be explained by historical perspective, translation or transcription errors. In contrast the The Koran suggest Jesus as 'the greatest prophet', then ignores His word.

 

[AllieBaba]

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.


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

The claims aren't false. The truth is, the accuracy of the bible is revealed in more detail on a daily basis.

It's just that bigoted secular assholes ignore it, refuse to report on it, and continue spreading lies about the origin of the bible and it's veracity.

 

[Shogun]

oh really? so what new proof has been discovered Today December 11, 2008 Baba?

 

[AllieBaba]

Yawn.

 

[Shogun]

Hey, you said it... so, show me how "The truth is, the accuracy of the bible is revealed in more detail on a daily basis"

If this is true then you should not have the slightest problem letting us know what epiphanies were uncovered on this day December 11, 2008

 

[AllieBaba]

This is an old argument which goes nowhere. You deny the truth so there's no point in wasting it on you.

 

[Southpaw]

Hey, you said it... so, show me how "The truth is, the accuracy of the bible is revealed in more detail on a daily basis"

If this is true then you should not have the slightest problem letting us know what epiphanies were uncovered on this day December 11, 2008

The only thing that results from you acting like this is that you look like a fool.

Well done.

 

[AllieBaba]

The ruins of Sodom and Gomorrah have been discovered southeast of the Dead Sea. The modern names are Bab edh-Dhra, thought to be Sodom, and Numeira, thought to be Gomorrah. Both places were destroyed at the same time by an enormous conflagration. The destruction debris was about three feet thick. What brought about this awful calamity? Startling discoveries in the cemetery at Bab edh-Dhra revealed the cause. Archaeologists found that buildings used to bury the dead were burned by a fire that started on the roof.

What would cause every structure in the cemetery to be destroyed in this way? The answer to the mystery is found in the Bible. “Then the Lord rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the Lord out of the heavens” (Genesis 19:24). The only conceivable explanation for this unique discovery in the annals of archaeology is that burning debris fell on the buildings from the air. But how could such a thing happen?

There is ample evidence of subterranean deposits of a petroleum-based substance called bitumen, similar to asphalt, in the region south of the Dead Sea. Such material normally contains a high percentage of sulfur. It has been postulated by geologist Frederick Clapp that pressure from an earthquake could have caused the bitumen deposits to be forced out of the earth through a fault line. As it gushed out of the earth it could have been ignited by a spark or surface fire. It would then fall to earth as a burning, fiery mass.

It was only after Clapp formulated this theory that Sodom and Gomorrah were found. It turns out that the sites are located exactly on a fault line along the eastern side of a plain south of the Dead Sea, so Clapp's theory is entirely plausible. There is some evidence for this scenario from the Bible itself. Abraham viewed the destruction from a vantage point west of the Dead Sea. The Bible records what Abraham saw: “He looked down toward Sodom and Gomorrah, toward all the land of the plain, and he saw dense smoke rising from the land, like smoke from a furnace” (Genesis 19:28). Dense smoke suggests smoke from a petroleum-based fire. Smoke rising like smoke from a furnace indicates a forced draft, such as would be expected from subterranean deposits being forced out of the ground under pressure.
Is there any evidence for the Biblical story of Sodom and Gomorrah's destruction by fire and brimstone (sulfur)? - ChristianAnswers.Net
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The first evidence that humans lived in an area now covered by the Black Sea -- perhaps inundated by the biblical flood -- has been found by a team of explorers.
CNN.com - Undersea explorer finds new evidence of great flood - September 13, 2000
Almost every month a new discovery is made in Palestine which supports the biblical picture of the area at the time the events recorded in the Bible occurred. Archaeologists who specialize in the Near East would do well to change their rhetoric and no longer call the biblical accounts in Judges, 1st and 2nd Samuel and 1st Chronicles "myths." It has been estimated that only about 10% of archaeological sites in what was ancient Israel have been excavated. I am prepared to place my bet that there are many more exciting discoveries waiting to be made. I am also confident that the recent trend will continue. With every discovery, the historical accuracy of the biblical histories will be supported and confirmed.

John Oakes, PhD
Evidence for Christianty - Two Recent Archaeological Discoveries Support the Bible

 

[Agnapostate]

I agree that Christ sometimes pops up in the OT as an 'Angel of the Lord' but that is not to say that every 'Angel of the Lord' in the OT is Christ Himself. Do you have any evidence that this one is?

I've never seen where Christian theologians suspect that it was a Christophany.

The entity known as "the Angel of the LORD" (literally "Yahweh's messenger") is traditionally interpreted as being a pre-incarnate Christ. He is referred to by God as a separate entity in Exodus 23:20-23, and it is implied that he has the capacity to forgive sin. God also says that "my name is in him" in Exodus 23:21. When he appears before Samson's parents in Judges 13, and reveals himself as the Angel of the LORD in Judges 13:20-21, Samson's father declares in Judges 13:22, "We shall surely die, because we have seen God!"

What you claim to be damning contradictions I see as minor differences that can be explained by historical perspective, translation or transcription errors. In contrast the The Koran suggest Jesus as 'the greatest prophet', then ignores His word.

I would also say that they can be explained by historical perspective, translation or transcription errors, but the problem is that this directly contradicts the idea that the Bible is an infallible text. If it is divinely inspired, we do not have access to the divinely inspired text, merely a flawed text.

The claims aren't false. The truth is, the accuracy of the bible is revealed in more detail on a daily basis.

It's just that bigoted secular assholes ignore it, refuse to report on it, and continue spreading lies about the origin of the bible and it's veracity.

On the contrary, the modern practice of textual criticism has allowed us to identify more problems with Biblical text than ever. This is most strongly indicated by your failure to offer a rational reply to the criticism, even as others have attempted it in this thread.

 

[Southpaw]

The entity known as "the Angel of the LORD" (literally "Yahweh's messenger") is traditionally interpreted as being a pre-incarnate Christ. He is referred to by God as a separate entity in Exodus 23:20-23, and it is implied that he has the capacity to forgive sin. God also says that "my name is in him" in Exodus 23:21. When he appears before Samson's parents in Judges 13, and reveals himself as the Angel of the LORD in Judges 13:20-21, Samson's father declares in Judges 13:22, "We shall surely die, because we have seen God!"

There is no supporting textual evidence that the angel in Ex. 23 is Christ pre-incarnate.

"My name is in Him" is a statement of authority. In other words, obey this guy because I sent Him and he bears my will. This is similar to a diplomat who bears the name and authority, to a degree, of the country that sends them.

Samson's father could say whatever he wanted. That doesn't mean that he was right.

Gabriel and Michael are also identified as messengers of God. Do you think they were one and the same with Jesus?

 

[AllieBaba]

The entity known as "the Angel of the LORD" (literally "Yahweh's messenger") is traditionally interpreted as being a pre-incarnate Christ. He is referred to by God as a separate entity in Exodus 23:20-23, and it is implied that he has the capacity to forgive sin. God also says that "my name is in him" in Exodus 23:21. When he appears before Samson's parents in Judges 13, and reveals himself as the Angel of the LORD in Judges 13:20-21, Samson's father declares in Judges 13:22, "We shall surely die, because we have seen God!"



I would also say that they can be explained by historical perspective, translation or transcription errors, but the problem is that this directly contradicts the idea that the Bible is an infallible text. If it is divinely inspired, we do not have access to the divinely inspired text, merely a flawed text.



On the contrary, the modern practice of textual criticism has allowed us to identify more problems with Biblical text than ever. This is most strongly indicated by your failure to offer a rational reply to the criticism, even as others have attempted it in this thread.

Really? Prove it.

 

[glockmail]

...

I would also say that they can be explained by historical perspective, translation or transcription errors, but the problem is that this directly contradicts the idea that the Bible is an infallible text. If it is divinely inspired, we do not have access to the divinely inspired text, merely a flawed text.
...

I've never been told that. The Torah might be. As a Catholic, I've always been encouraged to interpret the New Testament on my own.

 

[AllieBaba]

You haven't been told that because it isn't true.

 

[ABikerSailor]

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.



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

Actually, divine inspiration DOES exist. The Jews refer to it as the "Shkinah". Greeks referred to it as inspiration or a Muse.

Musicians and artists refer to it as their Muse also.

As far as female Jewish Prophets? Well......sure....they're referred to in the OT. You know.....Ruth and Esther?

I think Abraham's wife may have been one also. After all, you can't be that close to someone who is as close to God as Avraham was, without getting a little on yourself.

It's also really cool that on the 'net's Universal Torah Network, that a man named Rabbi Richman who teaches Torah, has also enlisted the help of his wife to teach about the female side of the equation.

You ought to check it out sometime. It's worth watching.

 

[sky dancer]

Meet the American Taliban:

George Bush

The President’s theocratic tendencies go back to his days as Governor of Texas. There he proclaimed the celebration of “Jesus Day”, in recognition of He who “changed my heart.” As President, his “Faith-Based Initiative” seeks to put $8 billion of taxpayer money in the hands of religious organizations to deliver social services without regard to potential discriminatory practices. The President, who apparently has his own "prayer team", consistently uses religious language and imagery in his speeches. Regarding his foreign policy, Bush emphasizes that the Declaration of Independence and Constitution not withstanding, “freedom is a gift from the Almighty.” (They were called the Founding Fathers, and not the Founding Deities, for a reason.)

Antonin Scalia

Supreme Court Justice Scalia has provided much of the intellectual heft and rhetorical rage in the legal assault on the separation of church and state

Roy Moore

The former Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court insisted on displaying a massive granite monument bearing the Ten Commandments at his courthouse and refused to obey a Federal judge’s ruling ordering its removal. In defiance, he claimed that announcing it depicts the "moral foundations of law" and reflects the "sovereignty of God over the affairs of men."

Roy Moore

The former Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court insisted on displaying a massive granite monument bearing the Ten Commandments at his courthouse and refused to obey a Federal judge’s ruling ordering its removal. In defiance, he claimed that announcing it depicts the "moral foundations of law" and reflects the "sovereignty of God over the affairs of men."
More at link:
Perrspectives: American Taliban



Perrspectives: American Taliban

 

[sky dancer]

"It’s historical fact that the Founding Fathers – most of whom were Deists – carefully and intentionally excised from the Constitution all references to “God,” and used the word only twice in the 85 Federalist Papers. It’s also historical fact that the nation’s first treaties, unanimously approved in 1797 by Congress and endorsed by President John Adams, stated “The Government of the United States … is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”Counterbias: The American Theocracy's New Symbol

 

[glockmail]

In the Declaration of Independence, the Founders cited their Creator to justify their inalienable rights. A well know battle cry of the Revolutionaries, as they descended upon British soldiers, was "We have no King but Jesus". In the Constitution they wished to secure His Blessings. They did not abandon their Christian God.

 

[sky dancer]

Freedom of religion is what the Pilgrims sought, not to create a theocracy.