Forums
Pages
Beliefs
Religion
Philosophy
News
Arguments
JOIN
LOGIN
Forums> USER>    

Posts

 
04-29-2010, 08:07 AM
Edit  

Frank K
Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 27

I am certainly not a Biblical scholar, but having many Christian friends and neighbors, I try to understand some of the scriptures that drive their beliefs so I can have an "intelligent" conversation with them.  Much of our political discourse today is influenced by organized religion, whether it be Christianity, Islam, or Judaism.   Beyond the social issues of when life begins, abortion, gay rights and such, the expectation of the Second Coming of Christ seems to be of paramount importance in how many Christians view the world, in particular conflicts and wars in the Middle East, but those beliefs don't capture the headlines that the social issues do. Brimicke has provided several Biblical references to the Second Coming in his posting, but like many Christians he has passed over  many of the more gruesome details in the  book of Revelation .

I understand that Revelation as well as verses in Ezekiel are controversial within the Christian and Jewish communities, and that there are multiple interpretations.  Nevertheless, a significant number of Christians, the so called premillennial dispensationalists, or more accurately the Christian Zionists, subscribe to the notion that the State of Israel needs to be defended and preserved for the Second Coming of Christ. Some journalists, most notably Gary North, have called them Armageddonites, after the place in Israel where the rapture will supposedly occur.  Some of the leading Christian figures of our time such as Pat Robertson, Billy Graham, and the late Jerry Falwell, were all strong advocates of Israel and opposed to any two state solution. Political figures like George W. Bush and Sarah Palin are also, by their words and actions, Christian Zionists.

The government of Israel, of course, has its own lobbies in Washington D.C., most notably AIPAC, but in sheer numbers and purpose, they would not be as powerful without the loyal support of millions of Christian Zionists. The Israeli government has capitalized on these Christian beliefs by nurturing a relationship with Christian leaders, despite the fact that, as Gary North put it so brutally, "The survival of the State of Israel is mandatory for its role as national sacrifice for Christianity, as fundamentalists perceive Christianity. Millions of Jews must die in horror in order that Christians may avoid death."

Ordinarily I wouldn't challenge what my Christian friends believed about the events surrounding the Second Coming of Christ.  However, as the attitudes of the more militant members of the Christian community have permeated into our government policies, it should be an issue of concern for every citizen of this country. I am a strong believer in the separation of church and state, but with respect to our policies on Israel and Palestine, it would appear to me that they are driven more by Biblical prophecy rather than strategic need.

General Patraeus highlighted his dilemma for American troops when he told the Senate Armed Services Committee, "enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests in the area of responsibility.  Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples in the region]."

If we expect our Presidential candidates and members of Congress to be honest in their stated positions on Israel, it is time that they came out of the closet and openly discussed their views on the Second Coming of Christ and how those views would influence their foreign policy decisions in the Middle East.  I personally don't believe that American troops should die for a Biblical prophecy.

 Comments are invited.  It's a controversial subject that needs to come out of the closet.

04-03-2010, 09:17 AM
Edit  

Frank K
Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 27
Those that have been following the news of the arrest of nine members of a Michigan based Christian militia group known as the Hutaree, may have missed the basis that binds this group together into action against government authorities.  Here are a few extracts from the Hutaree website, in About Us:

"We believe that one day, as prophecy says, there will be an Anti-Christ."

"Jesus wanted us to be ready to defend ourselves using the sword and stay alive using equipment. The only thing on earth to save the testimony and those who follow it, are the members of the testimony, til the return of Christ in the clouds."

"We, the Hutaree, are prepared to defend all those who belong to Christ and save those who aren't. We will still spread the word, and fight to keep it, up to the time of the great coming."

"We believe only what the Bible says and not on only philosphy as many christians of this day do."

"The Hutaree will one day see its enemy and meet him on the battlefield if so God wills it. We will reach out to those who are yet blind to the last days of the kingdom of men and bring them to life in Christ."

According to an indictment unsealed Monday, "the militia had planned to kill a member of law enforcement and then plant an improvised explosive device to attack the subsequent funeral procession. Other possible acts included killing a law enforcement official and his or her family at home or luring a member of law enforcement with a false 911 emergency call and then killing him or her."

I cannot help but see similarities between this Christian militia and the Islamic Jihadists.  Killing and murdering people as a part of a holy war against non-believers and secular governments does not serve either religion well, and is certainly is not sanctioned by the millions who practice their faiths with repsect and tolerance for those of different faiths or non-believers.

I would be interested in others' persectives.e
01-28-2010, 12:27 PM
Edit  

Frank K
Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 27

Trying to understand the interrelationship of the Rapture, Great Tribulation, the Second Coming, Judgment, Apocalypse, and Armageddon (a place in Israel where this all supposedly occurs) as described in the Book of Revelation is a challenging exercise.  Articles by theologians on this subject have often left me confused, mainly because there are multiple interpretations (translations?) and some of the jargon just leaves me hanging. Perhaps because of the politics of this sensitive subject it is a topic that is best avoided. In a Lew Rockwell article by Gary North entitled, The Foreign Policy of 20 Million Would-Be Immortals, I found this:

"What is rarely discussed publicly by Jews or fundamentalists is the fundamentalists' view of the  looming cost to Israelis for their return to Palestine. Fundamentalists believe that the Great Tribulation will wipe out two-thirds of the Jews in Israel. Hence, to encourage their return to the State of Israel is to encourage their destruction.

"Nothing will be done by Christians to save Israel's Jews from this disaster, for all of the Christians will have been removed from this world three and a half years prior to the beginning of this 42-month period of tribulation. The only Christians present at that time will be recent converts to the faith, who had been left behind as non-believers at the time of the Rapture."


If it is true, as North suggests, that 20 million people believe this interpretation or variations of it, could it be influencing our foreign policy towards Israel and Palestine? Christian Fundamentalists that appear to adhere to this belief are Pentecostals like Sarah Palin, Southern Baptists like Pat Robertson and Mike Huckabee, United Methodist Evangelicals like George W. Bush, and some Evangelical Lutherans like Michele Bachmann and many others.

Would a Christian Fundamentalist care to clarify my thinking?  Is this true?
06-27-2009, 10:58 PM
Edit  

Frank K
Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 27
One of the principle arguments used by proponents of Proposition 8 in California was that marriage is a "sacred institution" between a man and a woman. So if we were to accept this "sacred" argument, how would the various churches that heavily campaigned for the ban on gay marriage on sacred grounds view marriages between two athiests (man and woman)?  How could a marriage between two non-believers be considered "sacred" under the church doctrine?  If those same churches got together and sponsored a measure similar to proposition 8 but targeted athiests instead of gays, might it pass? Athiests are a minority in California.

Would a marriage of an athiest man and athiest woman be more "sacred" than a marriage of two Christian lesbian women?

As the American Athiests pointed out, the California voters and the California Supreme Court have set a dangerous precident in allowing the majority (mostly Christians) to remove the civil rights of a minority based solely on Biblical Christian beliefs. What's next? Where does it all stop?

   
06-27-2009, 08:59 AM
Edit  

Frank K
Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 27
Paul Bloom reviews Robert Wright's new book, The Evolution of God, in this NYT article.

"Robert Wright tells the story of how God grew up. He starts with the deities of hunter-­gatherer tribes, moves to those of chiefdoms and nations, then on to the polytheism of the early Israelites and the monotheism that followed, and then to the New Testament and the Koran, before finishing off with the modern multinational Gods of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

"Wright argues that each of the major Abrahamic faiths has been forced toward moral growth as it found itself interacting with other faiths on a multinational level, and that this expansion of the moral imagination reflects “a higher purpose, a transcendent moral order.”"

However, Bloom doesn't see how Wright's premise "constitutes an argument for a divine being. After all, even if we could somehow establish definitively that moral progress exists because the universe was jump-started by a God of Love, this just pushes the problem up one level. We are now stuck with the puzzle of why there exists such a caring God in the first place".  Even if God exists, "we would be left with another good news/bad news situation. The good news is that there would be a divine being. The bad news is that it’s not the one that anyone is looking for".

Worth reading Bloom's entire article at the above link.
06-27-2009, 08:31 AM
Edit  

Frank K
Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 27
Simon Critchley in this June 23, 2009 NYT Opinion article, writes about the concept of the "afterlife".

He suggests that "happiness does not consist in whatever you might be feeling — after death, of course, you might not be feeling much at all — but in what others feel about you. It consists more precisely in the stories that can be told about you after your death. This is what the Greeks called “glory,” and it expresses a very different understanding of immortality than is common amongst us. One lives on only through the stories, accounts and anecdotes that are told about one. It is in this that happiness consists."

And as such, Critchley writes: "Why doesn’t it make much better sense to live in such a way — to act kindly, fairly, courageously, decently — in such a way that happiness is something that others might ascribe to you after you are gone?"

Food for thought.
01-06-2009, 09:37 AM
Edit  

Frank K
Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 27
From the Unitarian Universalism website: Unitarian Universalism emerged from two different religions:  Unitarianism and Universalism both of which started in Europe hundreds of years ago.

Unitarian Universalism is a liberal religion that encompasses many faith traditions.  Unitarian Universalists include people who identify as Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Pagans, Atheists, Agnostics, Humanists, and others.  As there is no official Unitarian Universalist creed, Unitarian Universalists are free to search for truth on many paths.

We are united by shared values, not by creed or dogma. Our congregations are places where people gather to nurture their spirits and put their faith into action by helping to make our communities—and the world—a better place.

There are seven principles which Unitarian Universalist congregations affirm and promote:

  • The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
  • Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
  • Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
  • A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
  • The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
  • The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;
  • Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.

12-02-2008, 01:51 PM
Edit  

Frank K
Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 27
The extract below is from the World Pantheism website - Revering the Universe, Caring for Nature, Celebrating Life. 


“Are you searching for a path that focuses on this Earth rather than some imaginary beyond, that makes saving the planet its focus not saving your eternal soul, that respects individual choice rather than pushing prejudice down people's throats, that values reason rather than fanaticism?
    

“Do you find it impossible to believe in supernatural beings, and difficult to conceive of anything more worthy of reverence than the beauty of Nature or the power of the Universe?
   

“Do you feel a deep sense of peace and belonging and wonder in the midst of Nature, in a forest, by the ocean, or on a mountain top? Are you speechless with awe when you look up at the sky on a clear moonless night and see the Milky Way strewn with stars as thick as sand on a beach? When you see breakers crashing on a rocky shore, or hear wind rustling in a poplar's leaves, are you uplifted by the energy and creativity of existence?
    

“If you answered yes to these questions, then you will feel thoroughly at home in the World Pantheist Movement.”


12-02-2008, 01:39 PM
Edit  

Frank K
Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 27
From the Free Dictionary:
"An agnostic does not deny the existence of God and heaven but holds that one cannot know for certain whether or not they exist. The term agnostic was fittingly coined by the 19th-century British scientist Thomas H. Huxley, who believed that only material phenomena were objects of exact knowledge. He made up the word from the prefix a-, meaning "without, not," as in amoral, and the noun Gnostic. Gnostic is related to the Greek word gnsis, "knowledge," which was used by early Christian writers to mean "higher, esoteric knowledge of spiritual things"; hence, Gnostic referred to those with such knowledge. In coining the term agnostic, Huxley was considering as "Gnostics" a group of his fellow intellectuals"ists," as he called themwho had eagerly embraced various doctrines or theories that explained the world to their satisfaction. Because he was a "man without a rag of a label to cover himself with," Huxley coined the term agnostic for himself, its first published use being in 1870."
12-02-2008, 12:41 PM
Edit  

Frank K
Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 27
According to this Hindu website,

"With Hinduism you can have whatever you want. If you want to live a hedonistic lifestyle Hinduism will show you a way to live it without hurting yourself or others.. If you want to dedicate your life to worldly successes Hinduism will show you the way to do so within limitations. If all you want to do is your responsible duty to your neighbors, go ahead and do it. If what you want is liberation you can be shown the way.. Hinduism is a very philosophically thought out religion that essentially gives an answer for any question that you might have about your life. With each answer Hinduism gives a reason and a possibility of strengthening your understanding of the answer."

"The most important and valuable specialty of Hinduism is that it has not closed itself inside any contours, but is the realistic representation of the limitlessness of knowledge and experience. It is absolutely open minded. This is the religion that calls Let the good things come from all the directions of the world (aa no bhadrAH kratavo yantu vishvataH). Thus this religion nurtured the good concepts with a neutral mindset. Hinduism is a dharma (discipline) than a religion. Various religions stand over this dharma. In general this is not the religion of just postulations."

In this aspect, Hinduism is less structured than Christianity.
12-02-2008, 11:22 AM
Edit  

Frank K
Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 27
For those that are interested, here is the Deism link to "Thomas Paine's outstanding book on God, Deism, Nature, Christianity, the Bible, Judaism, etc., The Age of Reason. It is essential reading for anyone who wants to understand Deism. With this important book, Thomas Paine took Deism out of the intellectual parlors and brought it directly to the people!"
12-02-2008, 10:57 AM
Edit  

Frank K
Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 27
From the Deism website:
"Deism is belief in God based on the application of our reason on the designs/laws found throughout Nature. The designs presuppose a Designer. Deism is therefore a natural religion and is not a "revealed" religion. The natural religion/philosophy of Deism frees those who embrace it from the inconsistencies of superstition and the negativity of fear that are so strongly represented in all of the "revealed" religions such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam."

Deists among notable and influential people of the 1700s included George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin.

12-01-2008, 11:02 PM
Edit  

Frank K
Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 27
In this article on The World of Meditation, almost anyone can practice mediation in a form that suits them, from sitting to walking. It is increasingly practiced by people of all religions but the thoughts do not necessarily have to focus on religion. Meditating while walking, for example, is described as a "pleasant, easy way to expand your powers of concentration."

11-16-2008, 03:36 PM
Edit  

Frank K
Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 27

When Katie Couric asked Sarah Palin what periodicals she read that helped shape her worldview, she replied “all of them”.  While the media thought she was ducking the question or showed ignorance, she may in fact have interpreted the question quite differently, a “world view” shaped by her Assembly of God church instead of the mainstream media.  The Assembly of God website has an abundance of church newspapers, brochures and books that define her church’s doctrine and indeed their world view and perhaps her world view.  I am not one to question anyone’s faith, but since she is aspiring to run for President in 2012, we need to better understand her church inspired world views and how they might affect Presidential decisions.

 

Here are just a few views extracted from the AG website that could influence her policies and decisions:

 

The priority reason for being of the Assemblies of God as part of the Church is to be an agency of God for evangelizing the world, and to be a corporate body in which man may worship God…

 

Divine healing is an integral part of the gospel. Deliverance from sickness is provided for in the atonement, and is the privilege of all believers.

 

The second coming of Christ includes the rapture of the saints followed by the visible return of Christ with His saints to reign on earth for one thousand years, which will bring the salvation of national Israel.

 

All believers should avoid the Satanic tool of alcohol which destroys lives, damns souls and blights society.

 

The creation account is factual and historical.

 

Homosexuality is both a sin against God and mankind. Christians should do all they can to assist the person who has struggled with homosexual behaviors to find deliverance.

 

The Assemblies of God is unashamedly pro-life. Christians should actively support candidates who support the sanctity of life.

 

The use of chemically induced or surgical abortion as a means of birth control is flatly rejected. The Assemblies of God has an official position opposing abortion. Any birth control method that functions to destroy a fertilized egg, rather than actually preventing conception, is considered unacceptable.

 

The Assemblies of God does not endorse the radical feminist political/social agenda which claims to defend the best interests of all women. The goals of these groups are deceptive: a woman’s right to choice is twisted to support the atrocity of abortion; lifestyles outside of traditional family structures become a warped emphasis on lesbian rights; a woman’s right to a career becomes an aggressive degradation to women and mothers who do not choose a job outside their homes. Radical feminists cite religion as a tool of oppressors. These agendas become an organized platform to degrade, bash, and hate men. The Bible teaches mutual Christian submission and respect.

11-14-2008, 05:51 PM
Edit  

Frank K
Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 27
This Alternet article notes that the "government funds abstinence education to the tune of around $178 million per year. The only problem is that study after study shows that abstinence education has no effect on the rates of premarital sex or STD infection. Perhaps that's because over 80 percent of federally funded abstinence programs contain false or misleading information about sex and reproductive health. But then abstinence-only education isn't about keeping teens safe -- it's about reinforcing traditional gender roles and ensuring girls are "pure.""

ABOUT US - CONTACT US - LINKS - TERMS & CONDITIONS - PRIVACY POLICY

ATHEIST FORUMS - CHRISTIAN FORUMS - ISLAM FORUMS - JEWISH FORUMS - HINDU FORUMS

© Copyright 2008-2010 The Religion Hub. All Rights Reserved.