-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Anyone willing to help found a NEW Christian nation?
- Thread starter JeffM
- Start date
I tell you what. I, for one, can't wait until Jesus comes back to rule with a rod of iron for 1000 years as King of Kings, seated on the throne of David. I just can't wait. He will be a just and righteous King and every knee will and shall bow. No more man made laws. No more political correctness. No more sickos reinventing everything to suit their own selfish purposes. No more New Age teachings, no more Buddhist beads, no more Quran, no more wiccans, no more communists, no more war lords, no more drug lords, no more terrorists, no more murderers, adulterers, sexual perverts. No more atheists, no more ACLU, no more baby killers. No more wicked judges and legislators. The list of perversions, sorceries, idolatries, corrupt governments, and oppressions will be over. Wickedness will be a thing of the past for 1000 years. No more griping over the posting of the 10C in public places. It will really be "In God We Trust." What a wonderful time that will be. No more every person doing what is just in their own eyes. No more propaganda. It will just following the letter of the law, of Jesus' law. I can't wait. I can't wait for the Theocracy of Jesus. Even so, Come, Lord Jesus.
Taufgesinnter
New Member
Very, very true. Unfortunately, a great many people have bought into the revisionist history that this was at some time a Christian nation. That is, of course, an oxymoron under the biblical absolute separation of church and state. And misconceptions are constantly spouted, like the idea that Christian children cannot pray in public schools. Of course they can, and do, but they are free from state-imposed prayers, especially of the demeaning generic variety (civil religion) that are not made explicitly in Jesus' name. It's appalling that some people think Christians should secede, when biblically speaking, they aren't to regard themselves as belonging to any earthly nation, but rather the Israel of God.
Yes, maybe some of that (the character of men of the time) to some degree was true, although folks now want to make them all seem so bad and politically incorrect so as to discredit the whole founding and prevent a return today to those roots.
Regardless, here's some truth to consider: We're all no better as individual men today since each and everyone one of us has sinned and lost favor with God. We all have disobeyed God. The men of those days, while good men, were still sinners like us in the eyes of God. Only the grace of God through Jesus Christ makes any of us pleasing to God Almighty.
That failure of man, however, did not prevent God from leading the founding Fathers and new citizens to form a civil government and build a great nation based upon solid Christian beliefs. Only God blessed us with prosperity and protected us from our enemies. Only God lead us along a difficult painful path to right the wrongs among us and seek justice for all citizens. Only God made us great among peoples of the world. Man was merely the physical visible means through which the Holy Spirit directed these events of history.
It is God's greatness - not our own - that is responsible for all that is good about America. It is our foolish weakness that, if not promptly checked, will destroy it all.
Amen, Tauf!
LadyEagle, I ask you again - whose interpretation of the Bible would be valid in your Christian nation (NB 'Jesus'', whilst being of course the correct answer, won't do here, because we are talking about a nation founded by a group of Christians, not His 1000 year rule, glorious though that will be)
Yours in Christ
Matt
LadyEagle, I ask you again - whose interpretation of the Bible would be valid in your Christian nation (NB 'Jesus'', whilst being of course the correct answer, won't do here, because we are talking about a nation founded by a group of Christians, not His 1000 year rule, glorious though that will be)
Yours in Christ
Matt
Matt,
The concern of mine (and, I think, yours as well) would be who decides what Christian beleifs are. The following is a list of things that would be in jeopardy if we were throcratic:
Since the Bible says that marriage is between believers, marriages between non-Christians would be void.
Since the Bible says the poor should not be charged interest, it would be illegal for banks to give loans to low income people.
Since the Bible says that we are not to take the name of the Lord in vain, a person who curses in the privacy of his own home will be prosecuted.
Since the Bible says that women are to be keepers of the home, it would be illegal for marrried women to be employed outside the home. Also, since women are not to have authority over a man, single women would not be allowed to hold executive positions, or be judges, or run for political office, or work in law enforcement.
Since modest apparrel is required, the selling of Speedos and bikinis would be illegal, and anyone caught wearing one would be prosecuted.
Hmmm, so far, this sounds a lot like Iran.
The concern of mine (and, I think, yours as well) would be who decides what Christian beleifs are. The following is a list of things that would be in jeopardy if we were throcratic:
Since the Bible says that marriage is between believers, marriages between non-Christians would be void.
Since the Bible says the poor should not be charged interest, it would be illegal for banks to give loans to low income people.
Since the Bible says that we are not to take the name of the Lord in vain, a person who curses in the privacy of his own home will be prosecuted.
Since the Bible says that women are to be keepers of the home, it would be illegal for marrried women to be employed outside the home. Also, since women are not to have authority over a man, single women would not be allowed to hold executive positions, or be judges, or run for political office, or work in law enforcement.
Since modest apparrel is required, the selling of Speedos and bikinis would be illegal, and anyone caught wearing one would be prosecuted.
Hmmm, so far, this sounds a lot like Iran.
Well, I think John and Matt are way out on a limb.
Whose interpretation of the Bible? Hey, I'd be glad just to have the basics - the 10C honored, Bible reading and prayer back in schools as part of daily curriculum, a society with Godly morals and standards, and abortion on demand declared for what it is - murder.
Bring back the standards of the good old 1950s, please. Back when mom was at home raising the kids, baking cookies and wearing dresses and pop beads, and dad went to work and brought home the bacon. And place a picket fence around each cottage, please, with a little ivy here and there.
(Unfortunately, in SC, the ivy will probably be kudzu, LOL.)
Whose interpretation of the Bible? Hey, I'd be glad just to have the basics - the 10C honored, Bible reading and prayer back in schools as part of daily curriculum, a society with Godly morals and standards, and abortion on demand declared for what it is - murder.
Bring back the standards of the good old 1950s, please. Back when mom was at home raising the kids, baking cookies and wearing dresses and pop beads, and dad went to work and brought home the bacon. And place a picket fence around each cottage, please, with a little ivy here and there.
Marcia
Active Member
Yes, the good ol' 1950's when there were separate drinking fountains for blacks and whites (and a lot of other stuff like that), stifling conformity in dress, ugly clothes, alcoholicism was rampant it was not acknowledged and no one could really talk about it (especially the children who suffered), smoking cigarretes was popular and considered glamorous, etc. No thanks!
Even if you think those were good times, we can't go back in time by having a "Christian" nation.
That's where a tree bears most of its fruit
Now, you know as well as I that interpretation even amongst conservative Baptists varies.
Many on this board say that the 10C's are no longer in effect for the Christian.
Which Bible? The NIV? KJVO-IFB's would go nuts! And prayer? If it's the type of prayer that was removed in the 50's, it's a recited prayer. Many on this board will argue that recited prayer constitutes vain repetition.
That's a little vague. I understand where you're going, but it's a little vague.
While I would generally agree with that sentiment, abortion wasn't illegal prior to Roe v Wade, and it won't be illegal if Roe is overturned.
White and colored restrooms and restaurants? I'm sure you don't want ALL the standards of the 50's back.
Those weren't reality, not even in the 50's. Husbands and wives did not have separate beds. Bathrooms were not devoid of toilets. Rosie the Riveter did not hang up her hat after WW2.
These days, I believe the pickets would be of engineered hybrid lumber.
Oh, my! Hip deep!!!!
It was effectively a Christian nation for a fairly extended period of time. Not a Christian government mind you- but a Christian nation.
It is evidence of a severe paradigm shift that people today confuse "the nation" with "the government". When de Toqueville travelled the country looking for the American genius, he noted that the churches performed almost all of the education and cared for the poor. The nation took care of its own problems while the government (in particular the feds) looked after the business of foreign relations and protecting the people's rights.
Yes, unfortunately slavery was a grotesque departure from this great philosophy of rights, liberties, and self-government, however that does not impugn the philosophy itself nor provide any sort of validation for the secular statism that dominates our country now.
The 50's? Most of our problems today find their very roots in the period between 1930 and 1950. The income tax became accepted... because only the rich had to pay... and progressively Americans exchanged their rights for benefits out of the public treasury.
When Jefferson uttered those words, several states had official churches and the paradigm held that all education must be private or else government would indoctrinate then enslave the people... How wise they were indeed.
Wouldn't be a problem if education were still a purely private endeavor as it should be... BTW, d'Toqueville noted that almost all children were literate and got a good basic education when churches ran the schools.
But they are not free from state-imposed philosophies and social indoctrination nor from learning and abiding by the religious tenets of secular humanism.
I actually agree with you about prayers led by school employees as an official function of their job. However, I think prohibitions concerning the prayers of students or non-employee community representatives is an egregious violation of free speech.
And before anyone objects saying that these people would be using school property or equipment... there are alot of people who use schools and their property to advance points of view. It only seems to become a problem when the Christian religion is central.
For instance, "self-esteem abstinance" programs that assert that the source of morality is simply what is good or bad for an individual. This is a form of religion- self-deification.
While I would generally agree with that sentiment, abortion wasn't illegal prior to Roe v Wade, and it won't be illegal if Roe is overturned.
</font>[/QUOTE]Seems like it would in some states. If I am not mistaken, a reversal of Roe v Wade would restore laws in many states banning abortion.
It would also open the door for laws or court decisions based on science rather than political philosophies concerning when we should legally consider a new person alive. At the very least, it should be when a steady heart beat is established, about 3 weeks after conception.
How anyone can say that an independently sustained heart beat is not a sign of a living being is beyond me.
What it would technically do is return the power to legislate the issue to the states. So, in my state, abortion would be legal in the first trimester. In some states, it would be illegal altogether, In other states, it would be legal through the second trimester.
You and I agree on the science issue. However, I disagree somwehat with the heartbeat conclusion. One general thought is that life ends when brain waves are no longer present. Hence, it could be argued that an elective abortion could performed up to the time brain waves are present (which is closer to the second trimester). Regardless of our differing conclusions, I agree with the premise.
If I am not mistaken, brain waves appear between 7 and 9 weeks.
However, doctors cannot terminate life support on someone who has a heart beat and shows every sign of making a full recovery. An unborn with a sustained heartbeat has a high probability of developing brain waves.
You may be right. I'd go with that.
A person who is brain dead, but still has a heart beat, can be pulled from life support. The heart is an autonomous involuntary organ.
There are a few problems with that, though. For example, anencephalic fetuses (fetuses that develop without a brain, or, with only the brain stem), die upon stil birth. Typically, they're aborted by the body via miscarriage well before term. But those that survive to birth are still born. I see no reason why an abortion would not be warranted in these cases.
Marcia
Active Member
As a former feminist and pro-choicer, I can say the argument does not lie in whether the unborn baby is a living being or not, but 1)whether he/she is a separate individual (pro-choicers say no, he/she cannot sustain life on her/his own), and 2) the rights of the mother always supercede those of the baby in the feminist worldview. There are also other rationalizations -- many in New Age or eastern beliefs (as I was) believe that the soul is not in the fetus until right before birth and also that if the baby is aborted, he/she was not meant to be born at this time and will be reincarnated. That is how I justified my support of abortion. I am pro-life now but was pro-choice for longer than I've been pro-life since I only became pro-life after becoming a Christian (and it took over a year for it to happen completely).
Even worse!!
As a former feminist and pro-choicer,</font>[/QUOTE] I appreciate your testimony. I am sure that you came up with your own responses but these arguments are so lame and inconsistent... I just can't pass.
All people are dependent to one extent or another on other people. But specifically, children up to 12, the elderly, disabled, sick, injured, etc. are not able to sustain themselves for very long. It is uncivilized cruelty that says someone who cannot fend for themselves yet can be discarded for convenience sake.
That's is a very perverse prioritization of "rights".
Abortion has nothing to do with privacy rights spelled out in the USC- which is why an honest person should oppose Roe v Wade even if they are pro-abortion.
The Supreme Court has rightly ruled that one person's right to yell "Fire!" in a theatre does not supercede another person's right not to die by being trampled in the ensuing meyhem. If a "right to privacy" supercedes the right to life then we should never be able to prosecute a murder that takes place in the privacy of one's own home.
I am actually pro-choice. A woman has a free moral choice completely within her rights about whether she will engage in sex or not. Along with that right comes the responsibility to respect the right to life of the potential child.
No one gets the right to terminate/prevent someone else's life simply because they don't like the consequences of their free choices. Under such logic, a drunk driver should be able to shoot a living victim in a car they just wrecked since that person might mess up the drunk's life by testifying.
Marcia
Active Member
Posted by ScottJ
Civilized people have bought into this argument before (that those who cannot sustain themselves do not necessarily have the right to live) -- in Germany in the 1920's and 1930's. They euthanized old people, the disabled, severely ill people, etc. before the concentration camps.
Scott, I understand you don't like these rationalizations, but they are very common, especially the feminist one about the woman's right over the baby. These views have been entrenched in our culture for years -- I didn't even know any prolifers before I was a Christian, and I'm talking about back in the 80's. Everyone I knew had these prochoice views and used some of the reasons I posted before. And I had a very large circle of friends, acquaintances, clients, colleagues, etc.
Your reasoning against abortion is good but I don't think reasoning will help. I am convinced that the devaluation of life and the pro-abortion views in our culture are so deep (even most people personally against abortion still believe it's okay for others to have one) that it is a spiritual battle. I don't even think the battles can be won in the legal or political realm. We have a new generation going into government and law now, and these people are not infused with Christian values. And the generation after them - those who are teens now -- have mostly grown up in homes where no one has had exposure to Christianity at all.
I don't want to bring anyone down, but I think it's just realism. However, I strongly believe we need to stay in such a culture (not separate) to remain as salt and light. I always think of Elijah on the mountain and how down he was, saying that Israel had had torn down God's altars and killed his prophets, but God told Elijah that there were still 7,000 in Israel who had not worshipped Baal, and to go anoint Hazael and Jehu as kings and Elisha as the prophet to replace him (1 Kings 19.14-18). I also think of the early church in its very pagan environment, with the worship of gods, debauched practices in the pagan temples, and all kinds of stuff going on. God did not tell Christians to run away and seclude themselves, but instead he scattered them around through persecution so the Good News would spread.
Well, this is exactly what some medical ethicists have been saying for years -- that people who are very ill, severely disabled, or terminally ill have the right to be euthanized. In Oregon and Holland and some other places, they can.
Civilized people have bought into this argument before (that those who cannot sustain themselves do not necessarily have the right to live) -- in Germany in the 1920's and 1930's. They euthanized old people, the disabled, severely ill people, etc. before the concentration camps.
Scott, I understand you don't like these rationalizations, but they are very common, especially the feminist one about the woman's right over the baby. These views have been entrenched in our culture for years -- I didn't even know any prolifers before I was a Christian, and I'm talking about back in the 80's. Everyone I knew had these prochoice views and used some of the reasons I posted before. And I had a very large circle of friends, acquaintances, clients, colleagues, etc.
Your reasoning against abortion is good but I don't think reasoning will help. I am convinced that the devaluation of life and the pro-abortion views in our culture are so deep (even most people personally against abortion still believe it's okay for others to have one) that it is a spiritual battle. I don't even think the battles can be won in the legal or political realm. We have a new generation going into government and law now, and these people are not infused with Christian values. And the generation after them - those who are teens now -- have mostly grown up in homes where no one has had exposure to Christianity at all.
I don't want to bring anyone down, but I think it's just realism. However, I strongly believe we need to stay in such a culture (not separate) to remain as salt and light. I always think of Elijah on the mountain and how down he was, saying that Israel had had torn down God's altars and killed his prophets, but God told Elijah that there were still 7,000 in Israel who had not worshipped Baal, and to go anoint Hazael and Jehu as kings and Elisha as the prophet to replace him (1 Kings 19.14-18). I also think of the early church in its very pagan environment, with the worship of gods, debauched practices in the pagan temples, and all kinds of stuff going on. God did not tell Christians to run away and seclude themselves, but instead he scattered them around through persecution so the Good News would spread.