Religion: Better For Moral Health Of Community?

[Darth Executor]

You can't take your religion seriously unless you kill for it. That sounds like pretty good practical advice. Thanks Norm.

[Tassman]

You can't take your religion seriously unless you kill for it. That sounds like pretty good practical advice. Thanks Norm.

[lilpixieofterror]

First of all, I don't think there is any such thing as a "true Christian," and I could really care less what you people consider Christian and not Christian - it seems as varied as the stars in the universe.

Surrre you don't Norm, you just write things like:

Not a lie. You don't take your religion seriously. If you did, you wouldn't be wasting your time on an Internet forum. You would instead be out in the street protesting and organizing to take over America as a religious theocracy - just like the jihadists are doing with Islam.

And now that it's been shown you were wrong on all of your claims and assertions, you are quickly trying to do a 180 from your dumb claim because you can't admit you were wrong about anything. Don't want me to jump into a conversation, don't try to say every Christian isn't a 'true Christian' because they are not jihadists who are attempting to take over the world.

What I actually said was that it doesn't appear that you take your religion seriously. Instead of being active in your community and pushing for a theocracy, you are spending every minute posting on a web site.

No, that isn't true at all Norm, as you said:

Not a lie. You don't take your religion seriously. If you did, you wouldn't be wasting your time on an Internet forum. You would instead be out in the street protesting and organizing to take over America as a religious theocracy - just like the jihadists are doing with Islam.

Do you not have the mental capacity to write what you mean or did you have a bit of a slip where you did write what you mean and now are trying to backpedal faster than a cartoon character about to fall off a cliff because you can't admit you were wrong about anything? You started this little fight Norm when you tried to claim every Christian on this forum was not a 'true Christian' and attempted to back up this claim with out of context Bible verses. Ignoring the clear application of your own words isn't going to save you from admitting you were wrong Norm. As for spending every minute on a web site, I might spend an hour here, at most, in a day. Most of my day is full of lots of other things, including volunteering for my community too. Believe it or not, I can get a lot done with the other 23 or so hours of the day. How do you know what I do in a typical day?

Of course, the fact that I was speaking to Seer and no one else is totally lost on LPOT who saw this as another excuse to butt in. Seer has over 2,800 posts since February!

So what Norm? You said:

Not a lie. You don't take your religion seriously. If you did, you wouldn't be wasting your time on an Internet forum. You would instead be out in the street protesting and organizing to take over America as a religious theocracy - just like the jihadists are doing with Islam.

Which is an attack upon every Christian on this forum, including myself. What's the problem Norm, do you not like having to defend your words and don't like that your facts were wrong and you just can't admit to that? I don't care if you were taking to Seer or not, you attacked me as much as you did him or are you trying to wiggle your way out of your own words because you can't admit you were wrong about anything?

Finally, I am not accusing anyone of not being a Christian, nor am I calling anyone an idiot or a bad person. I am simply observing the fact that the Jihadists appear to be taking their Word of Allah more seriously than some Christians (like Seer) on this forum. The Islamic fundamentalists are willing to die and to kill for their religion. I don't believe that Seer would do this. I think his "war" is made up of words.

Surrre Norm. What actually happened is that you made a stupid comment, based upon a bad interpretation of the Bible, and now are trying to backpedal because you can't admit to an error. Besides, how are they taking their religion more seriously just because they are willing to kill and die? How does that equal 'more seriously'? Does that mean since Jesus willing went to the cross that he didn't take religion too seriously because he wasn't willing to kill for it? Does that mean Saint Peter didn't take religion seriously either since he, later in life, gave his life for his savior, but didn't kill for it? Do you have any idea how stupid and outright offensive that is, to imply that since Christians are not doing X, they can't be 'true Christians'? How about other people, of the Christian faith, who were not jhidhist and didn't take up a sword and kill in the name of Christ? Are they not 'true Christians' either? I could also point out your own words again:

Not a lie. You don't take your religion seriously. If you did, you wouldn't be wasting your time on an Internet forum. You would instead be out in the street protesting and organizing to take over America as a religious theocracy - just like the jihadists are doing with Islam.

No where did you say they 'appear to be' because you made a dumb comment and are quickly trying to backpedal out of it because you can't admit to what you actually said. Try harder Norm... your dodging isn't working.

BTW, I actually think it is a bad thing to be so obsessed with a book (Qu'ran in this case) that you are willing to kill others for it. So, when I tell you that you are not taking your religion as seriously as the Jihadists - I'm actually giving you a compliment!

No you are not Norm, what you are actually saying is that only those who are going out and plotting world domination are 'true believers' and those who are not do not 'take their religion seriously'. How did you determine that only those willing to kill for their religious beliefs are true followers? I thought it was those who faithfully followed the teachings of their faith that were 'true followers' and those who didn't were not 'true followers'. Since you can't support your assertion that Christians should be plotting world domination, how could you make the assertion that Jihadist are faithful to their religion and Seer, myself, and the rest of Christians here on tWeb are not? Admit it Norm, you said something really dumb and just can't admit you made an error.

But, you are so focused in making sure you trash talk me that you can't read between the lines.

No Norm, I'm focused on attacking you for what you actually said vs your sad attempts to warp your own words into something that you didn't say, at all because you want to dig your way out of admitting to your mistakes. I just don't like the fact that my 'reading between the lines' doesn't include your attempts to switch up your words into something else because you said:

Not a lie. You don't take your religion seriously. If you did, you wouldn't be wasting your time on an Internet forum. You would instead be out in the street protesting and organizing to take over America as a religious theocracy - just like the jihadists are doing with Islam.

No where did you say 'appear'. You clearly met to contrast true believers as being those willing to take over the world vs those who are not and saying only those who are willing to take over the world are 'true believers' and no where did you say otherwise, until your biblical interpretations were shot down. Nice attempted dodge, but your attempts to re-write what you clearly said and applied will not work here when your words do not back that up, at all.

LPOT, when will you learn to butt out? These threads normally are quite interesting and Seer and I actually have some good dialogue. And then you show up and ruin the whole thing.

When will you learn that is a public forum and I'm allowed to say what I want and jump into a conversation I want? Of course I 'ruined it' because I showed you were dead wrong and you just can't admit you made any sort of mistake. Dig that hole to China because anything is better than just admitting you were wrong, eh?

Why can't we put moderators on ignore????

Of course you want to ignore me, you made a total jack ass out of yourself and are too full of pride to just admit you made a mistake. You could have said that you met what you said above, right at the beginning, but you didn't do that, at all. What you attempted to do is back up your position that 'true believers' were ones willing to kill for their beliefs. When that became unattainable to hold to, you tried this dodge and trying to imply that I can't 'read between the lines' when you were not using this dodge until after your interpretations were shot down. While I might be a blonde, I'm not stupid Norm and I'm not going to fall for your attempts to re write history since you didn't mean what you said above at all because if you did, you would have used that defense without having to resort to throwing up Biblical passages and changing up your story once your interpretations were shown as wrong. I'm sure you'd really love to put me on ignore because you don't want to admit you were wrong. Don't worry though, I'm sure closing your eyes and blaming me for your own words will make all that nasty evidence stuff disappear into a puff of smoke. Again, you made your bed, now sleep in it.

[lilpixieofterror]

That’s the logical corollary for those who truly take their religion seriously: "Kill them all. God will select those who should go to heaven and those who should go to hell." — Abbot Arnold de Citeaux, 1205 (during the Fourth Crusade)

Fortunately for civilisation, religion is not taken as seriously as it once was in the West; it has been domesticated.

Sorry Tazzy wazzy, I already proved that is 100% totally false. That is why Norm is trying to dodge his own words. Don't worry Tazzy Wazzy, pretending you are right is always a good defense when you're 100% totally wrong.

[lilpixieofterror]

This means you do care.

Of course he does. He hates Christians and Christianity and just can't admit he was wrong (to me at least) because his hatred for me is almost as strong as his hatred for Christianity. At this point, he's just thrashing around like a fish caught on hook. He'll tire himself out eventually though.

[shunyadragon]

And this therefore implies that Christians, for thousands of years, are to be fighting wars to take over nations and establish religious theocracies? You might want to get those same meds for paranoia that it seems Norm needs because you are really stretching things into interpretations I never read about and it seems.

Well . . . ah . . . It is basically true that for thousands of years of the history of Christianity that they took over nations and established religious theocracies, and by the way the expressed goal of colonization in most cases. In fact some theocracies still exist Like Costa Rica.

The Book of Revelation need not be, and likely never has been interpreted literally for Christians to understand it in the light of a Holy War of good against evil, to establish the Kingdom of God on Earth as it is in Heaven as a theocracy, because that is exactly how many theocracies of Europe understood it, and justified their own rule by it. The theme of Theocracy is cover to cover in the Bible. The Book of Revelation is at the end, and continues that theme.

For example the prophecy: For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; and the government will rest on His shoulders; and His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. Isaiah 9:6

[tabibito]

For example the prophecy: For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; and the government will rest on His shoulders; and His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. Isaiah 9:6

Which was understood by the Jews to mean that it would apply to government of Israel, and not to the gentile nations. Further, the original church did not use force or advocate the use of force to spread the religion. The penalty for heresy or transgression generally is specifically stated to be excommunication for a time, and to allow a repentant person to return. Further, it is specifically mandated that association with a transgressor was forbidden until he did repent. Further again, it is specifically stated that a transgressor having been excommunicated was in the hands of Satan until he repented. Further again, peaceful relations with unbelievers, insofar as was possible, was mandated.
What the apostate church did after it handed itself over to Rome had nothing in common with the practices of the original churches. It was an outright violation of the mandate for the churches.

[RumTumTugger]

I'm not sure what you mean by actual action Norm. When exactly was the last time you had a homeless person in your home? Or personally worked in a soup kitchen? Or handed out food to needy families.

amen button

[RumTumTugger]

Great response lilpixieofterror...

To bad Norm refuses to reply to what lilpixie is saying insteads chooses to build up a strawman of his own making he can try and tear down so he does not have to admit his dishonesty here.

[lilpixieofterror]

Well . . . ah . . . It is basically true that for thousands of years of the history of Christianity that they took over nations and established religious theocracies, and by the way the expressed goal of colonization in most cases. In fact some theocracies still exist Like Costa Rica.

Which is totally irrelevant Shuny since you need to show it was a specific teaching associated with the early church and was the major goal of the early church. Now do you have evidence of this or are you going to dig up history from centuries after the early church and attempt to stretch that out to mean only 'True Christians' are plotting to take over the world. Could it be possible that as Christianity grew and gained more followers, people decided to use it for their own purposes?

The Book of Revelation need not be, and likely never has been interpreted literally for Christians to understand it in the light of a Holy War of good against evil, to establish the Kingdom of God on Earth as it is in Heaven as a theocracy, because that is exactly how many theocracies of Europe understood it, and justified their own rule by it. The theme of Theocracy is cover to cover in the Bible. The Book of Revelation is at the end, and continues that theme.

Which again, is irrelevant since the early church did not view it that way nor do modern Christians view it that way. I know you are very desperate to attempt to prove only 'true Christians' are the ones plotting to take over the world, but you really need to stretch it out, to make it work. You do know that apocalyptic literature was never met to be taken literal, right?

For example the prophecy: For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; and the government will rest on His shoulders; and His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. Isaiah 9:6

That's nice and I wasn't aware that Christians took that as a literal commandment to take over the world. You're really trying to stretch this, huh? Why?

[lilpixieofterror]

To bad Norm refuses to reply to what lilpixie is saying insteads chooses to build up a strawman of his own making he can try and tear down so he does not have to admit his dishonesty here.

But RTT, you're just not reading 'between the lines' of his words and not trying to make his words out in a light that doesn't make him look like a total jack ass. Guess he doesn't really want to defend his words...

[shunyadragon]

Which is totally irrelevant Shuny since you need to show it was a specific teaching associated with the early church and was the major goal of the early church. Now do you have evidence of this or are you going to dig up history from centuries after the early church and attempt to stretch that out to mean only 'True Christians' are plotting to take over the world. Could it be possible that as Christianity grew and gained more followers, people decided to use it for their own purposes?



Which again, is irrelevant since the early church did not view it that way nor do modern Christians view it that way. I know you are very desperate to attempt to prove only 'true Christians' are the ones plotting to take over the world, but you really need to stretch it out, to make it work. You do know that apocalyptic literature was never met to be taken literal, right?



That's nice and I wasn't aware that Christians took that as a literal commandment to take over the world. You're really trying to stretch this, huh? Why?

The belief was the Biblical government was an Ecclesiocracy (rule by Divine Right) or Theocracy, depending on how you define it.

"Romans 13 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you wish to have no fear of the authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive its approval; 4 for it is God’s servant for your good. But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the authority[a] does not bear the sword in vain! It is the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be subject, not only because of wrath but also because of conscience. 6 For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, busy with this very thing. 7 Pay to all what is due them—taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due."

Early Church?!?!? Let's begin with Constantine. and the Royal ecclesiocracies/theocracies of Europe and the Belief in the Divine Right to Rule, next. The Vatican State is called a ecclesiocracy/theocracy on the Biblical belief of Divine Right rule. I found that some source vary in what is called a theocracy and eccesiocracy. Some call rule by Divine Mandate eccesiocracy.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_right_of_kings

The divine right of kings, or divine-right theory of kingship, is a political and religious doctrine of royal and political legitimacy. It asserts that a monarch is subject to no earthly authority, deriving the right to rule directly from the will of God. The king is thus not subject to the will of his people, the aristocracy, or any other estate of the realm, including (in the view of some, especially in Protestant countries) the Church. According to this doctrine, only God can judge an unjust king. The doctrine implies that any attempt to depose the king or to restrict his powers runs contrary to the will of God and may constitute a sacrilegious act. It is often expressed in the phrase "by the Grace of God," attached to the titles of a reigning monarch.

© Copyright Original Source

Some countries like Costa Rica maintain that the Roman Church is the state religion, even though they are democratic republic.

[Cerealman]

So say the Divine right to rule is true.
How is that seen as the Divine right to take over the entire world?

If the State Religion is Roman Catholic and the form of government is a democratic republic......how is that a theocracy?

[shunyadragon]

So say the Divine right to rule is true.
How is that seen as the Divine right to take over the entire world?

If the State Religion is Roman Catholic and the form of government is a democratic republic......how is that a theocracy?

If I miss spoke before. Correction: Costa Rica is not a theocracy, it is a democratic republic with the state religion as the Roman Church.

The Vatican is a Theocratic (ecclesiocratic) authoritarian Monarchy

Source: http://www.vaticanstate.va/content/vaticanstate/en/stato-e-governo/organi-dello-stato.html

Vatican City State is governed as an absolute monarchy. The Head of State is the Pope who holds full legislative, executive and judicial powers.
During a sede vacante (between the death of a Pope and the election of his successor), these powers are exercised by the College of Cardinals.
The Pope is elected by the Cardinals who are under eighty years of age. He becomes Sovereign of Vatican City State the moment he accepts his election as Pope.

© Copyright Original Source

[shunyadragon]

What does Saint Augustine say about theocracy?

Source: http://www.the-philosophy.com/thomas-aquinas-saint-augustine

Saint Augustine: politics as City of God (theocracy)

What is the majeur change brought by St. Augustine‘s political thought since to the revelation? Simple answer is: Introducing God as the foundation of politics, as its foreground.

The Start of onto-theology of Augustine is: men are equal, but created by God as subjects.

Augustine distinguished two kingdoms of men and God, the temporal and spiritual power. The temporal power, because it is based on natural law, which part of inequality physical men, is imperfect. The temporal power must submit to the spiritual power, and just perfect. The State, with Augustine, must be the guarantor of divine order, serve the interests of the Church (which refutes Ockham William of St Augustine)

The aim of the policy will therefore constitute a “papal theocracy,” that is to say, the affirmation of universal domination, in terms of time as the spiritual, the supremacy of the popes princes, emperors or presidents

So what about democracy?

The political autonomy of men is an illusion, men must rely on God. It is this reason that justifies the theocracy: God no, men living in community can not spread, according to Augustine, that injustice.

Augustine operates a total reversal in the origin of power. While for the Greek Aristotle and Plato derived power from rationality, the power in Augustine takes its source in God’s creation. And despite their equality, men are placed in a position of heteronomy. We spend an immanent order in which men are masters of their political destiny, to a transcendent order, dominated by God.

Thus, if Augustine is not really the issue of better diet, its onto-theology tells us about its position that democracy can only be an unjust regime without legitimacy.

© Copyright Original Source

'