The Book of Revelation

Post Reply New Topic

If they want all this authority, maybe Ted and his pals are planning to be on the the team of the second beast?
I mean, if you want to read it as literal prophecy and you want authority over small and great, rich and poor, free and slave... you have sort of identified which side you are on and it isn't the Lamb's team, right?

As a Lutheran, I'm not one to hold Revelations in high regard, anyways. It's just a justification for the likes of Ted Cruz to push through their theocratic agenda.

Again, Dominionism is considered a heresy.

Although I am not explicitly clear why theocracy is offensive to professing Christians.

In what respect is Christianity-themed culture unjustifiable, compared to Christo-phobia.

http://www.wnd.com/2017/01/u-s-on-list- ... at_orig=us

A little Dominionism should seem nice, although the Bible prophesies apostasy, in the latter days.

There are tens of thousands of Christian denominations. Many consider the theology, soteriology, christology, exegitical traditions, manner of dress, manner of speech, manner of governance and general demeanor heretical, sinful, unbearable and generally not to be tolerated.

The probability of your finding universal agreement among professing Christians that a so-called theocracy is an actual theocracy is extremely low.

Now, if you can create a government actually ruled by God, then I don't think you'll have any problems getting people to support it.

The problem is when you propose a government by Ted Cruz or some other man like him pretending to speak on behalf of God. Then you are going to have a big problem.

Heh, maybe this is what Islam needs to integrate into the 21st century - ten varieties instead of two, then a few hundred instead of ten.

But, you took what I said out of context.




"Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels."
-- Mark 9:38, Luke 9:26

If this is really your own team, I don't see the moral dilemma in rooting for it.

Not at all, but the problem is when people propose that rooting for Ted Cruz is somehow rooting for the messiah.

Or that the messiah requires us to throw the first stone, discriminate against gays, enslave black people, discriminate against women, or any of the other garbage that false ministers have claimed had to be done in his name.

Since you've deployed Mark and Luke, let me add Matthew:
As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. “Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”
Jesus answered: “Watch out that no one deceives you. For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am the Messiah,’ and will deceive many. You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed."

I am not talking about people who profess to be reincarnations of Jesus Christ, himself.

I am talking about a Christian-friendly culture.

We know that the Tooth Fairy, Jack, and Jill are part of the prevailing culture. Noone (American) is particularly offended by Thanksgiving, or the 4th of July.

There are literal Devil worshipers, who consider Christianity to be a cultural platform, as well as the English language, and standard measurements, and they use that to relate to people. Communists have used idioms from Shakespeare and the Bible, and without any trigger warnings.

The thing is though, who says that not serving gay people at your bakery is Christ-friendly? Or that a coach at a public highschool leading the team in prayer at the 50 yard line is Christ-friendly?

Somebody once said:

You know what the common culture entails. Noone is realistically going to police you, in private.

General prayers to Christ are likely to be pro-Christian. In such a case, a sports riot would be unlikely. In what respect is this confusing.

Nothing wrong with a Christ friendly culture, but the fact remains, we are a secular nation with secular laws. People have the right to believe in anything, or nothing, all they want.
Theocracies have never worked out very well, and the very notion is Anti-American. Politics and power can be a corrupting influence, especially if those in power believe themselves to be free from said influence due to a relationship with the Almighty.
Christ said: "My kingdom is not of this world."
Paul said: "Be in the world, but not of the world.
My own Lutheran tradition has always stressed the two kingdoms - the one on the right hand, which is the kingdom of heaven, while the left hand is the kingdom of man, the secular world. Both are under God's rule, but have different laws to be obeyed. Maddison in fact thought highly of Luther for formulating a doctrine that would lead to the separation of church and state.

So, in my original point about that, I said that a Christ-friendly culture was preferable to persecution of Christians, from my perspective, as a Christian. I am not sure, why the need for so much clarification, on that.

Absolutely. But you had also said a dominionism wouldn't be a bad thing. It would be.

I said that capital "D" Dominionism is a heresy.

I said that a little bit of lower case "d" dominionism would be preferable.

Again, not understanding the need for clarification.

Think Davey and Goliath vs. Jesus Camp.

I feel like you're saying that a Mr. Rogers level of Christianity is regrettable? Am I wrong?

In some threads, I have said that spiritualizing the Word, or making everything generalized and symbolic, causes the Bible to appear inaccurate, or mythical.

But, I am not even sure how you're supposed to get that far, without having some normative concepts of good and evil.

Where do you draw the line, if at all.

I wouldn't say that. But I don't think a theocracy in a pluralistic society is consistent with the Golden Rule.

The problem is the law of unintended consequences. You start out wanting to make Mr. Rogers your Priest-King and you end up with the absolute rule of Westboro Baptist Church. Oops.

Better to focus on the heart of things than the superficial form: do justice, love kindness, walk humbly.

At the expense of torturing the language, we have incompatible worldviews questioning our justice, kindness, and humility. When you mention the Bible, there will people who can't decide what is the Bible. They don't know whether charity is voluntary or taken an gunpoint. They are called social justice warriors, and some some are warlike.

While I have said that people cannot realistically be policed, in private (repeatedly) WBC is discussing Rom 1's decent into chaos, in which basics can no longer be established.