Theocracy In America--Who wants this?

[sky dancer]

Come on. Don't try to snow me. The anti-Christians don't believe there is any real prospect of a theocracy in America.

What they really want is to stiffle any opposition to their agenda.

It's nothing but a scare tactic.

'Sure' they say 'we love freedom of religion and freedom of speech and the right to vote...just don't speak about your religion or vote based on your beliefs and we'll get along famously.'

Can you back up your assertion? I think this is a serious enough threat to discuss, don't you?

I think we need to be careful to not confuse fundamentalism with dominionism. It may be true that dominionist are fundamentalists also, but not all fundamentalists are theocrats.

 

[Southpaw]

You may be right about that. Do you have a quote from Jesus? I was under the impression he referred to himself as God's son.

In John, Jesus claims that before Abraham existed, he and God were one.

John 8:58 "Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am."

The Jews understood what Jesus meant when He said "I am." Jesus was claiming to be one with the Father in terms of being the same person by invoking God's name (I am).

Incidentally, they took that to be blasphemy and tried to stone him for it.

 

[Missourian]

Can you back up your assertion? I think this is a serious enough threat to discuss, don't you?

I think we need to be careful to not confuse fundamentalism with dominionism. It may be true that dominionist are fundamentalists also, but not all fundamentalists are theocrats.

Sky,

Your a good fellow and I am not saying there is no.merit to the discussion. What I am saying is we were infinitely closer to a theocracy 100 years ago than we are today.

Yet 100 years ago...no theocracy.

Fifty years ago blue laws were still enforced...yet no theocracy.

But today you contend the time is ripe and theocracy is in the wind...I don't think so.

I would be much more concerned about the second secesion of the south than the coming theocracy.

 

[glockmail]

What exactly have they done that's so intolerant?

Inflicting gay marriage on society, as an example.

 

[Care4all]

In John, Jesus claims that before Abraham existed, he and God were one.

John 8:58 "Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am."

The Jews understood what Jesus meant when He said "I am." Jesus was claiming to be one with the Father in terms of being the same person by invoking God's name (I am).

Incidentally, they took that to be blasphemy and tried to stone him for it.

Actually...He was Crucified because of it....this was the underlying cause of his arrest.

 

[Agnapostate]

In John, Jesus claims that before Abraham existed, he and God were one.

John 8:58 "Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am."

The Jews understood what Jesus meant when He said "I am." Jesus was claiming to be one with the Father in terms of being the same person by invoking God's name (I am).

Incidentally, they took that to be blasphemy and tried to stone him for it.

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."

 

[ABikerSailor]

In John, Jesus claims that before Abraham existed, he and God were one.

John 8:58 "Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am."

The Jews understood what Jesus meant when He said "I am." Jesus was claiming to be one with the Father in terms of being the same person by invoking God's name (I am).

Incidentally, they took that to be blasphemy and tried to stone him for it.

Well, ya know......He was trying to tell them something there also.......

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

Therefore, we are all a part of God.

Now......when Jesus said that He was One with the Father, He was talking about that, which means, that He WAS God, before the time of Abraham. However......He hadn't been sent over by carving Him out with the blade of self-will, which gives Him (and all of us) the right to say that we all are God.

Read my thread on Yeshua's Little Brother for further clarification.

 

[glockmail]

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."

Interesting, What would the punishment be for a scribe to make such an addition, if caught? This of course would be a supervisor of scribes, since he had to take all known copies, scribe new ones, the destroy all the originals. That supervisor would no doubt have proofreaders and editors that all had to be in on the conspiracy.

 

[Agnapostate]

Interesting, What would the punishment be for a scribe to make such an addition, if caught? This of course would be a supervisor of scribes, since he had to take all known copies, scribe new ones, the destroy all the originals. That supervisor would no doubt have proofreaders and editors that all had to be in on the conspiracy.

Are you sure you're familiar with the method in which the Gospel was transcribed at that period in time? Scribal copying errors were rather common, which is why the message "Fool and knave, can't you leave the old reading alone and not alter it!" is inscribed on page 1512 of Codex Vaticanus, next to Hebrews 1:3.

It was probably not intentionally added as a scribe as part of the text, but was a well-known oral account that was added in the margin of a manuscript at one point. A later scribe then probably assumed that it was intended to be a part of the text, and added it in. The passage has also been added at times after verses 36, 44, and 52, as well as after chapter 21, verse 25 and oddly enough, after Luke 21:38. The writing style and phrasing of the text is also decidedly different than anything else found in the book of John. No Greek church father comments on the text until about the twelfth century.

Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus are fourth century texts, which means that for at least 300 years after this alleged account occurred, it was not a part of the Bible, casting doubt on its "divine inspiration."

 

[sky dancer]

Actually...He was Crucified because of it....this was the underlying cause of his arrest.

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.

 

[glockmail]

Are you sure you're familiar with the method in which the Gospel was transcribed at that period in time? Scribal copying errors were rather common, which is why the message "Fool and knave, can't you leave the old reading alone and not alter it!" is inscribed on page 1512 of Codex Vaticanus, next to Hebrews 1:3.

It was probably not intentionally added as a scribe as part of the text, but was a well-known oral account that was added in the margin of a manuscript at one point. A later scribe then probably assumed that it was intended to be a part of the text, and added it in. The passage has also been added at times after verses 36, 44, and 52, as well as after chapter 21, verse 25 and oddly enough, after Luke 21:38. The writing style and phrasing of the text is also decidedly different than anything else found in the book of John. No Greek church father comments on the text until about the twelfth century.

Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus are fourth century texts, which means that for at least 300 years after this alleged account occurred, it was not a part of the Bible, casting doubt on its "divine inspiration."

OIC, because some editor wrote a note in the margins of an old book, the entire Gospel is now suspect.

 

[Agnapostate]

OIC, because some editor wrote a note in the margins of an old book, the entire Gospel is now suspect.

The entire Gospel is suspect when it comes to its alleged "divine inspiration" and "infallibility" because a large passage is in the Gospel that was clearly not authored by John, just as with the case of Mark 16:9-20.

 

[RodISHI]

"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?

Grant missed the mark in that "his perception" is that "Christians" were to claim the land. etc. etc. First off, there is no nation referred to as Christian by Christ. Second, land as Grant perceived refers to that which is physical not that which is spiritual. These two flaws alone are enough to put Grant in contrast with the teachings of Christ. Christ taught and demonstrated how the flesh wars against the spirit and the spirit wars against the flesh. When asked by a desciple about a different group Christ told the desciple not to concern himself with it. "They do another work for me." (sic)

I think the question should be, "How many Americans want this country to be a theocracy?"

 

[sky dancer]

Grant missed the mark in that "his perception" is that "Christians" were to claim the land. etc. etc. First off, there is no nation referred to as Christian by Christ. Second, land as Grant perceived refers to that which is physical not that which is spiritual. These two flaws alone are enough to put Grant in contrast with the teachings of Christ. Christ taught and demonstrated how the flesh wars against the spirit and the spirit wars against the flesh. When asked by a desciple about a different group Christ told the desciple not to concern himself with it. "They do another work for me." (sic)

I think the question should be, "How many Americans want this country to be a theocracy?"

I appreciate you separating the material goals of Grant with the spiritual goals of Christ.

How many Americans want the country to be a theocracy. I don't know. I do feel that those people on the religious right who emphasize culture wars are dangerously close to supporting theocracy. They seem to have a 'my way or the highway' agenda.

 

[glockmail]

The entire Gospel is suspect when it comes to its alleged "divine inspiration" and "infallibility" because a large passage is in the Gospel that was clearly not authored by John, just as with the case of Mark 16:9-20.

Good for you, as there is limited room in Heaven, and I'd like to best my chances.

 

[Agnapostate]

Good for you, as there is limited room in Heaven, and I'd like to best my chances.

Pascal's Wager is illegitimate because belief cannot be coerced, and belief in the face of evidence to the contrary is likely feigned in many cases.

EDIT: And really, who's to say that you can't go with Allah? The Qur'an is fairly well preserved compared to the Bible.

 

[sky dancer]

In John, Jesus claims that before Abraham existed, he and God were one.

John 8:58 "Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am."

The Jews understood what Jesus meant when He said "I am." Jesus was claiming to be one with the Father in terms of being the same person by invoking God's name (I am).

Incidentally, they took that to be blasphemy and tried to stone him for it.

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.

 

[glockmail]

Pascal's Wager is illegitimate because belief cannot be coerced, and belief in the face of evidence to the contrary is likely feigned in many cases.

EDIT: And really, who's to say that you can't go with Allah? The Qur'an is fairly well preserved compared to the Bible.

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.

 

[PeterS]

Those things are ridiculous, skydancer....they have nothing to do with the federal government supporting an "Established Church" which is what they are forbid to do?

So tell me, if I [a legislator] introduce legislation based on the principles of my [a] religion am I acting in accordance with the Founders intent? In other words, does imposing my religious will over everyone, irrespective of others religious belief, violate the establishment clause? For example, Bush acted to restrict stem cell research based on his religious beliefs and the attempt to ban gay marriage are primarily being argued on a religious basis. Are these constitutional actions or crossing the line into an establishment of church? What were the founders trying to protect, and protect us from, with the establishment clause?

 

[RodISHI]

I appreciate you separating the material goals of Grant with the spiritual goals of Christ.

How many Americans want the country to be a theocracy. I don't know. I do feel that those people on the religious right who emphasize culture wars are dangerously close to supporting theocracy. They seem to have a 'my way or the highway' agenda.

They do and as Rod said their are some that are very dangerous. That goes both ways though on many of the debates that abound out there. We are being forced to accept by law things that we should not be forced to accept. All in the name of tolerance. To be force to do something you do not believe in will lead to intolerance.