Christianity QA

Question:

Sorry for the sarcasm a few places, but I really hate seeing fanaticism in religion or government.  This subject has both.

Hard lock and fire. You describe perfectly what I have come to call the "Amereligion". — Regards Thore "Tocis" Schmechtig

Response:

"Submit yourselves therefore to God." — James 4:7

Response:

To suggest the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is or ever has been anything but political propagandist is to show ignorance of politics and history. The phrase was hotly debated in Congress when it was added in the 50’s.   Depending on your ages, you (if you are a lot older than me), your parents, grandparents, or great grand parents never said "under God" when they said the Pledge of Allegiance.  It was added to the Pledge to declare that the US was greater than the USSR because we were supported by God himself and in any conflict we would win. What a crock!!!  Why did we have 45 years of Cold War, fighting our battles in little out of the way places like Korea, Vietnam, Honduras, etc if we were so God protected?  Why do I still react to sirens, from all the duck and cover training as a child? If that phrase is so important, then what the hell happened in the "War that would end all wars" (World War I) when we were not making such a pledge or the time of the "Greatest Generation" with WW II.  They were not making any such pledge.  Before the inclusion of the words, the US had one war it did not win, against the Seminole Indians in the Florida swamps.  Since the inclusion we have had Korea (loss/tie – 3 years – reason – politcal, economic), Vietnam (loss – 11 years – reason – political, economic), Gennada (win – 3 days – reason – political, extract US citizens mostly), Panama (win – 1 day, reason – politcal, stop kidnapping, rape, torture, and murder of female US military dependents in Canal Zone), Yugoslavia (Still going on, reason, political???), Gulf War (win, 6 months prep, 30 days war – reason – political, economic), Afghanistan (still going on, political, religious), current war in Iraq (still going on, political, religious, economic).  All of the recent wars and conflicts have been "under God". We never had that advantage or we would have done what Patton wanted. People like Joe McCarthy were indirectly responsible for adding it to the Pledge.  People who fed on the fears of others, who used tactics of intimidation that would make a protection racket proud, people the that had nothing better to do than to make Nationalism the true religion of America.  Worship America and you are worshipping God.  Even better than the comment of GM CEO, "What is good for General Motors, is good for the   USA."  What is good for America, is good for God.  Hallelujah!!!!! All bow before the flag.  All praise its glory.  Go out my children and destroy those heretics/abominations that would question my perfection. Our track record was much better when we admitted we were expansionist.   I do not think we are now, we just want to convert everyone in the world to the religion with its head being the Flag.  God of America. (Hallelujahs!!!! and Praise the Flag!!!, heard in the alcoves.) Religion and politics and economic models are not the same thing.  To those Christians that would suggest socialism is wrong I would like to point out the early Church according to the Book of Acts was organized as a almost pure socialist society.  It was basically as Marx described "from all according to their ability, to all according to their need", no private ownership except for the clothes on your back.  Please note that the purest form of socialism is communism.  Communism has nothing to do with politics or religion.  It is the nth degree of being a brothers keeper and loving your neighbor as yourself.  So lets keep economic models out of the argument, unless you want to give up your televisions, radios, cars, etc in the name of Christianity. Also though I agree government officials should be people of good moral/ethical character and preferably high wisdom, I do not think religion should now or ever be part of politics.  It just suppresses people and thought. A government for a nation as large, varied, and complex as the United States has become must of necessity be flexible and tolerant.  If not it will have to either convert all citizens to fanatical followers (as I think it is trying now) or purge all decedents.  We MUST not let nationalism become our religion or religion our nation. I care nothing for the words "under God" in the Pledge, except to remember why they were added and what that reason signifies about us.  I   personally wish they were struck from the Pledge for that reason, even if I did not question the statement as being a violation of Church and State concepts. Sorry for the sarcasm a few places, but I really hate seeing fanaticism in religion or government.  This subject has both.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The person who was the political spearhead of the movement to remove God from the Constitution was my former Mp, Svend Robinson. Since his recent admission of a $64,000 theft and the fact that he is now under permenant medication it is unlikely he or anyone else in Canadian politics will be trying to remove God from the Constitution and with a minority govt issues such as homosexual marriages will be harder to snake through Parliament. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that "…Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law…". Do you believe that removing the phrase "the supremacy of God" from Canada’s Constitution would be "good"? ***Not necessarily good or bad. Saying that Canada was founded on the supremacy of God..does not mean that one cannot admit to being wrong and wanting to change it to something more inclusive of all. The U.S. used to support slavery..that does not mean that it still does…nor are women still not allowed to vote because they are not considered "persons" in an old Canada law. Some things are meant to

***snip Svend is a fine person. He is very honest and like any human being prone to mistakes vis-a-vis his recent arrest for theft. He has no interest in removing "God" ….only to remove the concept of the Government only being for those who are spiritual or religious. God can never be removed from a persons heart and soul…and taking it out of a document does not just make God …disappear. Those that worry about God being erased from documents as "God being erased" period…have no faith in God. I find Svend Robinson a very very brave man…he has fought hard for others…those on the fringes…those that Jesus would be spending time with……and that can be stressful to do this. May he and his work continue on. He is a warrior for God and peace. I.M.O Bren (from B.C.)

Response:

The person who was the political spearhead of the movement to remove God from the Constitution was my former Mp, Svend Robinson. Since his recent admission of a $64,000 theft and the fact that he is now under permenant medication it is unlikely he or anyone else in Canadian politics will be trying to remove God from the Constitution and with a minority govt issues such as homosexual marriages will be harder to snake through Parliament. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that "…Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law…". Do you believe that removing the phrase "the supremacy of God" from Canada’s Constitution would be "good"? ***Not necessarily good or bad. Saying that Canada was founded on the supremacy of God..does not mean that one cannot admit to being wrong and wanting to change it to something more inclusive of all. The U.S. used to support slavery..that does not mean that it still does…nor are women still not allowed to vote because they are not considered "persons" in an old Canada law. Some things are meant to change. i.m.o Bren

Response:

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that "…Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law…". Do you believe that removing the phrase "the supremacy of God" from Canada’s Constitution would be "good"? ***Not necessarily good or bad. Saying that Canada was founded on the supremacy of God..does not mean that one cannot admit to being wrong and wanting to change it to something more inclusive of all. The U.S. used to support slavery..that does not mean that it still does…nor are women still not allowed to vote because they are not considered "persons" in an old Canada law. Some things are meant to change. i.m.o Bren —             "Knowledge without wisdom is like stacking books                         on the back of an ass"                          Old Japanese saying.         Come visit my webpage at http://www.victoria.tc.ca/~wt211

Response:

        The favorite sexual position of Christians…. Paul

Response:

What is your definition of "church"? Exactly who or what do you believe constitutes "church"? ***any religion. Bren

The first definition for religion in the World Book Dictionary (1977) states "belief in God or gods".

and state is good..and that includes me". The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that "…Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law…". Do you believe that removing the phrase "the supremacy of God" from Canada’s Constitution would be "good"?

Response:

I don’t see the word Church having to do with Jesus only. I have seen many other "churches" that have nothing to do with Jesus.

Actually, you are correct, the mob that attempted to kill Paul because they blamed him for a drop in Diana figurine sales was also called an "ekklesia" but, in this case, the word was not translated "church." Terrell

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – What is your definition of "church"? Exactly who or what do you believe constitutes "church"? The word "church" is translated (except in Hebrews) from the word "ekklesia" which simply means assembly.  Jesus said that when any two or three are gathered in His Name, He is among them.  A church, then is any assembly of people gathered in Jesus’ Name. It is not a building.  WIth the exception of the book of Hebrews, every verse that mentions a location says, "the church that meets at ___’s house. It meets on no particular day, in Acts, the church met "daily from house to house."  Indeed, whenever and whereever you have two or more people getting together in Jesus’ Name, you have a church. Terrell

sensible2me: Assembled all cozy inside the mind and heart of each individual is a congregation, a gathering of many people, places and things…. When two or more of these are gathered inside the house in the (closet) of your mind in Jesus name you have a building beginning to form on a certain foundation……. within.. Christ is the carpenter, the mind is the builder. God travels from house to house rooftop to rooftop, let us not be absent minded by attending to people, places and things that keep you in the dark about certain kinds of buildings that must take place.

Response:

I don’t see the word Church having to do with Jesus only. I have seen many other "churches" that have nothing to do with Jesus. Bren —             "Knowledge without wisdom is like stacking books                         on the back of an ass"                          Old Japanese saying.         Come visit my webpage at http://www.victoria.tc.ca/~wt211

Response:

As with any socialist country, the move has been to remove God from government expression, while attacking it publically and privately. Socialism and Athesism are not synonyms. Terrell ***Yes indeed. Canada is a Socialist country and there is no suppression of religion or God in our country. Some folks believe that separation of church and state is good..and that includes me.

[trimmed] What is your definition of "church"? Exactly who or what do you believe constitutes "church"?

Response:

What is your definition of "church"? Exactly who or what do you believe constitutes "church"? ***any religion. Bren

Response:

What is your definition of "church"? Exactly who or what do you believe constitutes "church"?

The word "church" is translated (except in Hebrews) from the word "ekklesia" which simply means assembly.  Jesus said that when any two or three are gathered in His Name, He is among them.  A church, then is any assembly of people gathered in Jesus’ Name. It is not a building.  WIth the exception of the book of Hebrews, every verse that mentions a location says, "the church that meets at ___’s house. It meets on no particular day, in Acts, the church met "daily from house to house."  Indeed, whenever and whereever you have two or more people getting together in Jesus’ Name, you have a church. Terrell

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – As with any socialist country, the move has been to remove God from government expression, while attacking it publically and privately. Socialism and Athesism are not synonyms. Terrell ***Yes indeed. Canada is a Socialist country and there is no suppression of religion or God in our country. Some folks believe that separation of church and state is good..and that includes me. I don’t want anyone to feel pressured to pick one religion over another for special treatment. I also don’t want to feel like I am in a fundamentalist country. Canada embraces all faiths and atheism. Bren —

Then they are ignoring the words of Lenin, who said that atheism was an essential part of sociailism. http://providential-plan.com/undergod.html

Response:

Then they are ignoring the words of Lenin, who said that atheism was an essential part of sociailism. ***That was infact communism and not socialism. The Russians called it socialism…but it was not..it was communism and a dictatorship as well. Canada and a few european countries…England,Norway,Sweden…etc. are real socialist countries and do not ignore God. Bren —             "Knowledge without wisdom is like stacking books                         on the back of an ass"                          Old Japanese saying.         Come visit my webpage at http://www.victoria.tc.ca/~wt211

Response:

As with any socialist country, the move has been to remove God from government expression, while attacking it publically and privately.  

(YAAAAWN) We need new fundie idiots in these newsgroups. The current crop sucks royally. — Regards Thore "Tocis" Schmechtig

Response:

As with any socialist country, the move has been to remove God from government expression, while attacking it publically and privately.

Socialism and Athesism are not synonyms. Terrell

Response:

As with any socialist country, the move has been to remove God from government expression, while attacking it publically and privately.

Socialism and Athesism are not synonyms. Terrell ***Yes indeed. Canada is a Socialist country and there is no suppression of religion or God in our country. Some folks believe that separation of church and state is good..and that includes me. I don’t want anyone to feel pressured to pick one religion over another for special treatment. I also don’t want to feel like I am in a fundamentalist country. Canada embraces all faiths and atheism. Bren —             "Knowledge without wisdom is like stacking books                         on the back of an ass"                          Old Japanese saying.         Come visit my webpage at http://www.victoria.tc.ca/~wt211

Response:

Recovering a hijacked faith By Jim Wallis | July 13, 2004 MANY OF US feel that our faith has been stolen, and it’s time to take it back. A misrepresentation of Christianity has taken place. Many people around the world now think Christian faith stands for political commitments that are almost the opposite of its true meaning. How did the faith of Jesus come to be known as pro-rich, pro-war, and pro-American? What has happened? How do we get back to a historic, biblical, and genuinely evangelical faith rescued from its contemporary distortions? That rescue operation is crucial today in the face of a social crisis that cries out for prophetic religion. The problem is clear in the political arena, where strident voices claim to represent Christians when they clearly don’t speak for most of us. We hear politicians who love to say how religious they are but fail to apply the values of faith to their leadership and policies. When we take back our faith, we will discover that faith challenges the powers that be to do justice for the poor instead of preaching a "prosperity gospel" and supporting politicians who further enrich the wealthy. We will remember that faith hates violence and tries to reduce it and exerts a fundamental presumption against war instead of justifying it in God’s name. We will see that faith creates community from racial, class, and gender divisions, prefers international community over nationalist religion and that "God bless America" is found nowhere in the Bible. And we will be reminded that faith regards matters such as the sacredness of life and family bonds as so important that they should never be used as ideological symbols or mere political pawns in partisan warfare. The media like to say, "Oh, then you must be the religious left." No, and the very question is the problem. Just because a religious right has fashioned itself for political power in one predictable ideological guise does not mean those who question this political seduction must be their opposite political counterpart. The best public contribution of religion is precisely not to be ideologically predictable or a loyal partisan. To always raise the moral issues of human rights, for example, will challenge both left- and right-wing governments who put power above principles. Religious action is rooted in a much deeper place than "rights"– that being the image of God in every human being. Similarly, when the poor are defended on moral or religious grounds, it is not "class warfare," as the rich will always charge, but rather a direct response to the overwhelming focus in the Scriptures, which claims they are regularly neglected, exploited, and oppressed by wealthy elites, political rulers, and indifferent affluent populations. Those Scriptures don’t simply endorse the social programs of liberals or conservatives but make clear that poverty is indeed a religious issue, and the failure of political leaders to help uplift those in poverty will be judged a moral failing. It is because religion takes the problem of evil so seriously that it must always be suspicious of too much concentrated power — politically and economically — either in totalitarian regimes or in huge multinational corporations that now have more wealth and power than many governments. It is indeed our theology of evil that makes us strong proponents of both political and economic democracy — not because people are so good but because they often are not and need clear safeguards and strong systems of checks and balances to avoid the dangerous accumulations of power and wealth. It’s why we doubt the goodness of all superpowers and the righteousness of empires in any era, especially when their claims of inspiration and success invoke theology and the name of God. Given human tendencies for self-delusion and deception, is it any wonder that hardly a religious body in the world regards the ethics of unilateral and preemptive war as "just"? Religious wisdom suggests that the more overwhelming the military might, the more dangerous its capacity for self and public deception. Powerful nations dangerously claim to "rid the world of evil" but often do enormous harm in their self-appointed vocation to do so. The loss of religion’s prophetic vocation is dangerous for any society. Who will uphold the dignity of economic and political outcasts? Who will question the self-righteousness of nations and their leaders? Who will question the recourse to violence and rush to wars, long before any last resort has been unequivocally proven? Who will not allow God’s name to be used to simply justify ourselves, instead of calling us to accountability? In an election year, the particular religiosity of a candidate, or even how devout he might be, is less important than how his religious and/or moral commitments and values shape political vision and policy commitments. Understanding the moral compass a candidate brings to his public life and how his convictions shape his political priorities is the true litmus test. Jim Wallis is convener of Call to Renewal and executive director of Sojourners. — — FAIR USE NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 "If this were a dictatorship, it’d be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I’m the dictator." – GW Bush 12/18/2000. "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." —Theodore Roosevelt "For us to get bogged down in the quagmire  of an Iraqi civil war would be the height of foolishness." —Defense Secretary Dick Cheney, 1991 Ninure Saunders aka Rainbow Christian http://Rainbow-Christian.tk The Lord is my Shepherd and He knows I’m Gay http://Ninure-Saunders.tk Take my polls http://ninure.100megsfree5.com My Yahoo Group http://Ninure.tk My Online Diary http://www.ninure.deardiary.net – Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches http://www.MCCchurch.org To send e-mail, remove nohate from address

Response:

The battle of the pledge has served a great service for the Christianity.  It has shined a light on the anti-christian movement in our land to remove any mention of God from society.  As with any socialist country, the move has been to remove God from government expression, while attacking it publically and privately.  With official endorsement of Atheism and private attacks on our faith, the devil hopes to use peer pressure to remove our Trust from God. Notice the targets of recent attacks.  1 The Ten Commandments and 2. the phrase "under God."  What does this say about those launching lawsuits?  They don’t want to be subject to God, and they don’t want anyone else saying they are…pure rebellion. The terrorist threats we face and economic woes we endure are only a few examples of what happens when a nation rejects God’s reign.  When we refuse his kingship, can we really expect His kingdom’s protections and providences? As Benjamin Franklin said, "We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that ‘except the Lord build the House they labour in vain that build it.’ I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages." We need to re-establish our founders trust in God’s Hand, so that we may receive the blessings that accompany it. http://providential-plan.com/undergod.html (A Nation Under God website)

Response:

Related Posts