| Author | Message | ||
     speakword2004 Senior Member Username: speakword2004 Post Number: 1236 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 196.25.255.250 |
Steve Murrell asserts that there is no Biblical justification for the separation of church and state. http://everynation.wordpress.com/ Can anyone provide a biblical justification for the separation of church and state, please? | ||
| mcmstaff78 Senior Member Username: mcmstaff78 Post Number: 1018 Registered: 7-2006 Posted From: 68.214.10.246 |
I guess it depends on how you define "separation of Church and State", a phrase not found in the Constitution. However, that the State and the Church are not joined nor compass the same realm of authority may be inferred from: They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. (Matthew 22:21) Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. (John 18:36) Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you. (Luke 17:21) | ||
| speakword2004 Senior Member Username: speakword2004 Post Number: 1237 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 196.25.255.250 |
MCM78 I think the church is called to subvert the Empire in that it will always be opposed to injustise, opression and legalism etc. but that it should never aspire to be the Empire if you know what I mean. Before Anti Fascist soils his Zanu-PF t-shirt let me state from the get-go that I dislike Christian Reconstructionism and all its brands. Here's a topical article from the Theonomic purists: http://www.chalcedon.edu/articles/article.php?ArticleID=2718 | ||
| mcmstaff78 Senior Member Username: mcmstaff78 Post Number: 1019 Registered: 7-2006 Posted From: 68.214.10.246 |
I echo your sentiments! | ||
| philiprosenthal Advanced Member Username: philiprosenthal Post Number: 778 Registered: 3-2006 Posted From: 196.25.255.250 |
The motivation for the separation of the institutions of the Church and the state is very simply that the state lacks the competence to judge eclesiastical disputes - and thus such disputes must be judged by the church. Non-Christians in government cannot distinguish between what is truth and what is error. Therefore this must fall under the authority of the church. Historically, problems have always arisen by too close a relationship between church and state. Nevertheless, this argument has been abused by communists, atheists, secular humanists, pagans etc to argue that all Christian values must be divorced from the state. That argument is false. God has authority over all of life, including both the church and the state and his word the Bible is applicable to all of life including that of the government. | ||
| formermaranathapastor Intermediate Member Username: formermaranathapastor Post Number: 211 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.58.229.5 |
The church and Christians should be involved in helping the poor, the sick, the hungrey and those in prison. The Church has no business in judging gays, War and peace issues, or environmental causes, for it has proved to be woefully inadequate in changing the World to one of Love. | ||
| coppertree Senior Member Username: coppertree Post Number: 1297 Registered: 2-2005 Posted From: 172.165.42.49 |
Hi All, Dear former, yes this is true.} | ||
| philiprosenthal Advanced Member Username: philiprosenthal Post Number: 782 Registered: 3-2006 Posted From: 198.54.202.250 |
Okay formermaranathapastor. Are you going to take out a pair of scissors and cut out all the Bible verses on homosexuality, war, peace and environment? Or don't you think God meant you to read them too? | ||
| mcmstaff78 Senior Member Username: mcmstaff78 Post Number: 1027 Registered: 7-2006 Posted From: 68.214.10.246 |
PR, yes Former would do that if he could. He has stated many times that he doesn't hold the scriptural texts as authoritative. | ||
| anti_fascist Intermediate Member Username: anti_fascist Post Number: 167 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 85.195.123.24 |
Here we go again on the fundamentalist's merry-go-round! Speakword started with an intelligent question, Former raised a valid point as regards the sorry score sheet of institutional christianity over the past 200O years, and out comes Rosenthal driving wedge issues. Hey there, the Bible tells about God from many perspectives. It is in no way the inerrant Word of God. But then fundamentalists love worshipping idols like the Book. Will just let them be. To those who have recovered from the EN/Maranatha opium, here's a link to a VERY good and challenging documentary called 'Who wrote the Bible?Why?To controll whom?'http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=475017379969914449 Speakword, I'm convinced that this docu will answer your question better than I could. | ||
| anti_fascist Intermediate Member Username: anti_fascist Post Number: 169 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 85.195.123.24 |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I think it is important to keep in mind that the OT was written for an audience that saw itself as God's chosen nation, and therefore needed to adhere to the exact same set of beliefs.Here we could argue that the Temple was the State. However, the NT is a totally different context. Jesus specifically says that the Samaritans were the neighbours to be loved as oneself.He specifically attacked and condemned the Pharisees who were a new emerging movement bent on 'reconstructing' Judaism. Furthermore, Jesus said several times that His Kingdom was not of this world, and rebuked Satan for tempting Him with temporal power. All power is given to Jesus. This does not imply the Church nor the disciples. St Paul exhorts Christians to obey secular state power. Turning the NT concept of religion into a base for temporal power as did the RCC and Calvin in Geneva, and as is desired by dominionists is contrary to Jesus' teachings. He said that the mysteries of God was not given to all to understand. He also said that the field of God had good wheat and bad wheat, and that the prerogative of God was to judge. Never has this been transfered to the body of believers. So, even in a system where every citizen claims to be a nominal Christian, seperation of the temporal world and spiritual world is biblical. How could it not be, if God is love, and allows man to exercise his free will to accept or reject God? Modern reality implies that we live in countries where Christianity is an import, and shares the religion market with many other faiths. So either we have freedom of religion and absolute seperation of religion and state, or else we have a bloody civil war to decide who is right. But before that, the bigots need to proove that God exists, and isn't just a delusion of their warped minds.Unfortunately this is impossible, for both sides of the argument. Speakword, maybe you should come to terms with the fact that South Africa is not and will never be an exclusively Christian nation, and learn to live your faith accordingly. | ||
| 40days40years Senior Member Username: 40days40years Post Number: 2252 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 207.62.190.7 |
Well if we are going to discount the opinions of Christians in government because they are based on religion I would like to see secular humanist values, and things like global warming hysteria classified as religous and automatically discounted too. The marxist like to classify their philosphy as scientific so they can discount everybody elses opinions as religoun and impose their values in the name of science. | ||
| maranatha1984 Senior Member Username: maranatha1984 Post Number: 1102 Registered: 3-2006 Posted From: 12.96.65.83 |
Tikie:M I will add my 2 cents worth. The destruction and decline of the early Church begin the moment that Constatine converted his legions and made Christianity the official religion of the empire. It follows that those who are interested in power and authority will move into the church seeking to turn it to their own ends rather than those of Christ. This is EXACTLY what happened post Constatine- come to think of it this is EXACTLY what EN and other reconstructionist movements have become. The fundamentalist section of the evangelical church- once it inserted itself into politics and PACS in the US castrated whatever spiritual authority and relevance that it had. Jerry Falwell et all were the worst possible men in the worst possible place as far as the church (the true church) is concerned. It is going to take the TRUE CHURCH a generation to recover from the idiocy of the Christian Right in all is rediculous manifestations. Tikie | ||
| 40days40years Senior Member Username: 40days40years Post Number: 2254 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 207.62.190.7 |
Jerry Falwell has a right to organize people like anyone else Tik. The left is the real culprit in America imposing its pagan culture everywhere. Christians started to get involved in politics because they saw the results of the early Billy Graham style of not getting involved in dirty politics and this resulted in Christian culture and values systematically purged from our society. An official state church can lead to corruption but we don't have an official state church except for secular humanism. Sure power corrupts but if Christians did not get involved in politics in the old days could Islam have been stopped by the crusades? I doubt it but I don't know. Most likely without the state churches of old we would all be Muslim. Food for thought. | ||
| 40days40years Senior Member Username: 40days40years Post Number: 2256 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 207.62.190.7 |
Look at this I think it's great. | ||
| speakword2004 Senior Member Username: speakword2004 Post Number: 1238 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 196.25.255.250 |
I also think we need to remember that the Roman state was the state religion and that church and state were not far removed from each other. Christians were persecuted and slaughtered by a state underpinned by a religion that deified it. M84 I am with you on Constantine. Cde AntiFascist, I thought you were going to direct me to a Zanu-PF youth training camp video. I was pleasantly surprised. I will watch Beckford's video with interest. | ||
| speakword2004 Senior Member Username: speakword2004 Post Number: 1239 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 198.54.202.250 |
I also think we need to remember that the Roman state was the state religion and that church and state were not far removed from each other. Christians were persecuted and slaughtered by a state underpinned by a religion that deified it. M84 I am with you on Constantine. Cde AntiFascist, I thought you were going to direct me to a Zanu-PF youth training camp video. I was pleasantly surprised. I will watch Beckford's video with interest. Don't worry I don't mind if Jesus was a Black Jew either. In fact, I don't care what colour He was or is - He just happens to be the coolest revolutionary ever. | ||
| 40days40years Senior Member Username: 40days40years Post Number: 2265 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 172.190.221.176 |
Sure when the church gets near power it gets corrupted I understand that. If Christianity had not gotten near corrupting political power would it have survived the warriors of Islam? We almost lost. | ||
| speakword2004 Senior Member Username: speakword2004 Post Number: 1240 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 196.25.255.250 |
I thought considering that this is a more open and free type of forum I would try and bring the debate in a bit more here on Factnet so that we can move forward constructively instead of constantly bickering and complaining. Intellectuals and Bible scholars sharpen your pencils please. http://everynation.wordpress.com/2007/04/09/is-separation-of-church-and-state-in-the-bible/#comment-63 "Steve, During my years in your church group there were a wide variety of flirtations with various ideas regarding God and Government. Your senior pastor in Maranatha Campus Ministries, Bob Weiner was a supporter of Christian Reconstructionism and Theonomy and Gary North dedicated one of his books to him, if I recall correctly. In South Africa we had SYMSA, which was an attempt at providing some ecclessisastical leadership here in 1992 during our transition to a democracy from the Old South Africa. I see that Reconstructionists such as Steve McDowell, whom himself was involved in Maranatha, continue to instruct at the Victory churches in your adopted country. Whilst the idea of Christians running government is a noble one, I see inherent dangers in not having a separation of church and state and even after reading young Rushdooney I am not convinced that this idea of Theocracy does not preclude such separation of various governments. After all, the Hebrew High Priest did not run ancient Israel or Judea. I am also not convinced after reading the talk given by Lafoon and Broocks at your 2004 world conference that Every Nation Church does not have some type of millenarian aspirations. The idea of Every Nation Church having its own USA president sounds a tad dangerous considering the difficulties your church has had with its own governors such as Ball, Broocks and Daniel. Perhaps we need to open this up to further discussion. I have entered this idea on another forum for your consideration and perhaps some of your leaders or yourself could respond?" | ||
| mcmstaff78 Senior Member Username: mcmstaff78 Post Number: 1030 Registered: 7-2006 Posted From: 68.214.10.246 |
Actually, it wasn't Constantine the Great that "made Christianity the official religion of the Empire". Constantine issued the Edict of Milan in 313 AD making all religions legal in the Empire, though especially aimed at legalizing Christianity and ending the continued persecution of Christians. I think you may be confusing this with the Emperor Constantine's conversion of his army in 311 prior to the Battle of Milvian Bridge, after which he gained control of the Western portion of the Empire. At this point he was on one of three rulers of the Empire (a tetrarch) and it wasn't until 324, with his defeat of the ruler of the eastern empire, Lucinius (who was a terribly cruel persecutor of Christians) that Constantine became the sole ruler of the Roman Empire. If you read the lives of the martyrs and study the histories of the persecutions Christians suffered in these first three centuries, one can hardly imagine the great joy and relief that was felt and the legalization of the faith. The only thing comparable, and perhaps exceeding it, was the persecution of the Church under communism in the 20th century on (for it still goes on in China and North Korea). Unfortunately, the Edict of Milan did not last long as Constantine's heirs did not all follow in their father's (or uncle's, as the case may be) footsteps. In fact, Emperor Julian (called the Apostate) who reigned from 361 to 363, attempted to revert the empire back to pagan worship and instituted a renewed persecution against Christians. It was Theodosius I (or "the Great"), Roman Emperor from 379 to 395 AD, who made Christianity the Official religion of the Roman Empire. I think most of what is generally regarded as the "destruction" or "decline" of the Church began with the Franks conquest of the Western Roman Empire and eventual instillation of Frankish bishops (first in Gaul), who were semi-Arians, as political tools leading. In order to claim legitimacy over the Emperor in the east, they instituted more and more doctrinal "innovations" and eventually pressured politicized the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) as well. Not that there were not abuses in the East as well, there certainly were, but it was the Franks that turned the Latin Church into what was basically simply an extension of State political power. | ||
| speakword2004 Senior Member Username: speakword2004 Post Number: 1243 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 196.25.255.250 |
gone_to_pa (gone_to_pa) writes an interesting article on church hierachy etc. where he mentions Constantine and the Roman Empire's influence on the church. I mention this as I read the article a few weeks ago on another thread and spent some time mulling over it and some of Frank Viola's points. Perhaps it does throw out the bay with the bathwater or perhaps it would be helpful for a little revisionism or relook. http://www.factnet.org/discus/messages/3/8834.html?1134607709 Here in South Africa many of the Charismatic churches and even the leading WOF Church are embracing the Emerging Church idea. I am yet to be convinced that it is not assimilation rather than reformation. | ||
| mcmstaff78 Senior Member Username: mcmstaff78 Post Number: 1031 Registered: 7-2006 Posted From: 68.214.10.246 |
Speak, I've been out of the evangelical/charismatic loop for so long I'm not really conversant on the whole Emerging Church thing. From what little I understand, it is a rather "eastern" way of looking at things, experiential and story driven rather than rational and propositional. Yeah, I skimmed through the thing form gone_to_pa and there are a lot of what I would consider interpolations or inferences rather than simply factual evidence presented. For example, Ignatius was not the "first" bishop. If one reads Eusebius History of Church (which was compiled and published prior to the legalization of Christianity, IIRC, and most certainly prior to it becoming the official religion of the empire) this becomes apparent. Also, Ignatius was a disciple of the Apostle John and wrote just a few years after John's death. He succeeded both Peter and Evodius as Bishop of Antioch in 69 AD. Many of the Apostles are still alive at this point, including all the authors of the Gospels. I'm inclined to put more stock in the writings of a disciple of the Apostles than someone putting together a "history" 2000 years later with about 500 years of (perhaps justifiable) anti-Latin bias behind him. A truly fine work on Church history is Jaroslav Pelikan's The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine in 5 volume published by Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Pelikan was a Lutheran theologian at the time. | ||
| speakword2004 Senior Member Username: speakword2004 Post Number: 1249 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 196.25.255.250 |
Ah, I stumbled upon some reviews of Pelikan's work in the last 12 months and was fascinated. Unfortunately I would have to find some way of sourcing it without forking out the considerable sum it would probably require. Have you read it yourself? Pray tell. | ||
| formermaranathapastor Intermediate Member Username: formermaranathapastor Post Number: 213 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 68.35.107.252 |
Philip said: "Okay formermaranathapastor. Are you going to take out a pair of scissors and cut out all the Bible verses on homosexuality, war, peace and environment? Or don't you think God meant you to read them too?" Philip- I do not believe that the Bible is literally true, but it is a representation and a guide for truth. It also was written 2000 years ago, and times, ways of living, and culture changes. | ||
| mcmstaff78 Senior Member Username: mcmstaff78 Post Number: 1037 Registered: 7-2006 Posted From: 68.214.10.246 |
I've not read the whole thing, though it can be read through like a narrative. I have the first two volumes, I want the last three, but like you have put off their purchase for other things. I use it more as a reference tool than to read as a narrative. I generally look for used on Amazon. | ||
| jia Member Username: jia Post Number: 62 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 80.109.163.152 |
i dont believe that GOD changed his values, his views on life and his moral. if this would be so, the bible would be no guide for anyone. or what would it be then, than just a nice book with tales for children? scripture is not dependent on times, ways of living and culture changes. this is a weak argument, former, not only because times, ways of life and culture changes are nothing new, but have always been. in the times when the OT and NT was written, there have been the same cultural and livestyle challenges like today, perhaps even stronger (abortion, homosexuality, killing of infants and children as well as of old and handicaped people,...). i am totaly against an interpretation of scripture based on time, livestyle or cultural influences. This was never on the agenda of classical christians, but has become part of the evangelical theology quite late (i think 19th century). i do however NOT believe that Christianity is called to create a state based on OT laws. why? because Jesus Christ does not promote this idea, but instead even warns from this. I do believe that we as christians shall be good examples, by living moral and loving. We shall also stand up against unrightesness and evil. We shall be light and salt for the world. salt is a spice. if all the world would be salt it would taste terrible. | ||
| jia Member Username: jia Post Number: 63 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 80.109.163.152 |
i dont believe that GOD changed his values, his views on life and his moral. if this would be so, the bible would be no guide for anyone. or what would it be then, than just a nice book with tales for children? scripture is not dependent on times, ways of living and culture changes. this is a weak argument, former, not only because times, ways of life and culture changes are nothing new, but have always been. in the times when the OT and NT was written, there have been the same cultural and livestyle challenges like today, perhaps even stronger (abortion, homosexuality, killing of infants and children as well as of old and handicaped people,...). i am totaly against an interpretation of scripture based on time, livestyle or cultural influences. This was never on the agenda of classical christians, but has become part of the evangelical theology quite late (i think 19th century). i do however NOT believe that Christianity is called to create a state based on OT laws. why? because Jesus Christ does not promote this idea, but instead even warns from this. I do believe that we as christians shall be good examples, by living moral and loving. We shall also stand up against unrightesness and evil. We shall be light and salt for the world. salt is a spice. if all the world would be salt it would taste terrible. | ||
| formermaranathapastor Intermediate Member Username: formermaranathapastor Post Number: 214 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.58.229.5 |
A good example is ethnicity. In the day the Bible was written, slavery was an accepted part of the culture as reflected in statements by Jesus and Paul. Today we see that we have been enlightened on the issue and we know that slavery is wrong. Another example is polygamy. Accepted in the Old Test, but not accepted now. Another example is the patriarchal bias of the Bible. Women and men are equal. Women are NOT subserviant to men. Things do change as the years tick by, even as regards the Bible. | ||
| anti_fascist Intermediate Member Username: anti_fascist Post Number: 171 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 85.195.123.24 |
The thing with homosexuality in the eyes of the fundamentalist right wing, is that it is a convenient wedge, exactly like the Jews were in Spain after the RCC conquered the Iberique peninsula in the Middle Ages. They were forced to convert, or face burning at the stake, yet those who did convert, were ever spied on and considered insincere,even suspected of secretly practising their original religion. This was primarily a vector for the terror of the Inquisition,which kept other dessenters in line.(do view the movie 'Inquisition' by Arturo Ripstein, a disciple of Bunuel) Today we hear exactly the same discourse from the Religious Right and their evil ex-gay ministries.http://www.truthwinsout.org/ But why? The best answer is Chris Hedges' "Christian Fascists". It is all about power,money and therefore politics. Obviously, if they spent as much energy fighting divorce, and persecuting adulterers and people who have pre-marital sex, they wouldn't have any support. And yes, I agree that the Bible cannot possibly be considered an accurate historical document. Even the Gospels were not written by the actual apostles of Jesus, but by others, and this is substantiated by overwhelming evidence:http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=475017379969914449 | ||
| freedom43 Intermediate Member Username: freedom43 Post Number: 457 Registered: 7-2006 Posted From: 129.33.119.12 |
Robert said: "or what would it be then, than just a nice book with tales for children?" Me: It's definitely not that. A friend gave us a Little People Noah's Ark recently. We were playing with the baby and singing that song "The Lord said to Noah, there's gonna be a floody floody...so get those children out of the muddy muddy. Children of the Lord..." But, in the Bible, only Noah's family was saved. So, essentially, the story is that millions (I am not sure what the world's population was at the time) of other children drowned to death. Not something we sing about in Sunday school. The toy came with a figure of a girl, and I wondered if that were the daughter who got Noah drunk and slept with him -- but then I remembered that Noah did get drunk, but it was Lot's daughters who did that. And, his family was supposedly spared death because they were righteous. Somehow that reminded me of the story of the guy in Judges who cut up his concubine into 12 pieces and sent them to the tribes of Israel..... Anyway, all that to say. Good for instruction, etc. but not a nice book of tales for children. | ||
| mcmstaff78 Senior Member Username: mcmstaff78 Post Number: 1049 Registered: 7-2006 Posted From: 24.99.130.74 |
A-F, what you know about "overwhelming evidence" regarding the scriptures is simply typical Internet misinformation. You should look to some actual biblical scholars rather atheists who are just looking to prove a point. | ||
| forword Intermediate Member Username: forword Post Number: 200 Registered: 12-2005 Posted From: 68.52.214.120 |
Don't confuse a Theocracy with individual Christians being involved in government. I firmly believe that Christians need be involved in the culture in every way, including being involved in governent. However, I firmly believe government should be secular, even with Christians involved. Along the same line of thinking, I firmly believe in the principles taught in the bible regarding homosexuality, war, peace, and the environment. However, I am dead set against any attempt at laws based on a particular set of religious views beyond the basic Judeo-Christian ethic that respects all people's rights and freedoms. I completely agree with Former's statement that we should be about helping the poor and sick, etc. Where we need to rule is our own tongues and our own hearts. We do good if we can manage that. | ||
| anti_fascist Intermediate Member Username: anti_fascist Post Number: 175 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 80.119.65.226 |
mcmstaff:You should look to some actual biblical scholars rather atheists who are just looking to prove a point. A-F:Red Herring, so to you this means that all who do not see the Bible as litteral truth are atheists? The problem is that religious scholars have to be biased, as accepting real evidence will necessarily undermine their belif system; It's like asking the wolf to guard the sheep, and expecting it not to kill any. Forword:However, I am dead set against any attempt at laws based on a particular set of religious views beyond the basic Judeo-Christian ethic that respects all people's rights and freedoms. A-F, thanks, this is view to which I subscribe too! | ||
| mcmstaff78 Senior Member Username: mcmstaff78 Post Number: 1052 Registered: 7-2006 Posted From: 68.214.10.246 |
Well, we're at an impasse then. I don't accept your "experts" and you won't accept mine (who are not necessarily biblical literalists - another shiboleth of the atheist). | ||
| formermaranathapastor Intermediate Member Username: formermaranathapastor Post Number: 215 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 71.32.112.232 |
Forward said: "Along the same line of thinking, I firmly believe in the principles taught in the bible regarding homosexuality, war, peace, and the environment. However, I am dead set against any attempt at laws based on a particular set of religious views beyond the basic Judeo-Christian ethic that respects all people's rights and freedoms. " Leaving homosexuality out for a moment, how can you justify conservative Christianity marching "lockstep" in support of the War in Iraq, and how can you justify their denial of global warming and the necessity to reduce greenhouse gases? How do you interpet the scripture in those areas? | ||
| mcmstaff78 Senior Member Username: mcmstaff78 Post Number: 1068 Registered: 7-2006 Posted From: 68.214.10.246 |
Because there are good reasons to support the War in Iraq, and there is little reason to believe that human produced "greenhouse gases" are responsible for the current slightly warming global temperature. | ||
| jia Member Username: jia Post Number: 71 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 80.109.163.152 |
i disagree totaly. there is NO reason to justify a war on a foreign nation, which has NOT been a thread for the own nation. history has already brought evidence that Irak did NOT support the Taliban, the Al-Quaida and had nothing to do with 9/11. I was pro-irak-war, when it first started. but today we have enough evidence that this war was senseless. it did not bring the espected results (and it never will). As a Christian it is unbelievable for me that other Christians share the view that (this) war is just! There might be situations where war is not stoppable. But in this case, the Bush administration created a lot of b(ull)•••••)! means R_Unknown,(who otherwise agrees with mcmstaff78 most of the time!) | ||
| mcmstaff78 Senior Member Username: mcmstaff78 Post Number: 1069 Registered: 7-2006 Posted From: 24.99.130.74 |
I disagree with you, Robert, though I honestly don't want to get into a debate here over it. I think if all you hear is the MSM mantra on the war, then your attitude is pretty predictable. However, there is plenty of evidence that Iraq did support Al Qaida (no one ever claimed anything regarding the Taliban or had a direct hand in 911). But this is my last word on the subject. | ||
| anti_fascist Intermediate Member Username: anti_fascist Post Number: 178 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 80.119.65.226 |
I agree 100% with Robert (jia) there is absolutely no justification for this war. The real reason for it is oil. read this and open your eyes!http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/43045/ One day you pro-war Americans will have to explain to your children why you supported a bunch of criminals in the White House. I can tell you, judging the pain and rejection some whites are experiencing in my country because of their support for Apartheid, that you will cry bitter tears. Mcmstaff, your affirmation is pathetic, and is only trumped by the idiocy of the Bush regime that in its wisdom has opened the pandora's box of Shia nationalism. Iran couldn't have hoped for a more benevolent stooge in the White House. And every day this war goes on, it will sow more resentment against the USA and prepare your next 9/11. What are you going to tell your kids?that it is God's planned end times? It is ever more obvious that Saddam was hanged in a rush before he could get a fair trial, during which he could tell just how much he had to thank the USA and George Bush snr for supplying him with cluster bombs and chemical weapons. Saddam was a creation of US foreign policy as much as Al-Quaeda is a puppet of the CIA gotten out of control. | ||
| the_west_here_i_come Junior Member Username: the_west_here_i_come Post Number: 48 Registered: 2-2005 Posted From: 128.186.159.109 |
amen anti fascist! if only christians knew that they were planting their holocaust in the future because of their continual support for this Antichrist inside the whitehouse. Israel is in more danger than ever and Iran is now benefiting from the US mistakes. | ||
| genesis_truth Intermediate Member Username: genesis_truth Post Number: 136 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 203.96.117.58 |
Conspiracies, conspiracies. Where would we be without them? bored I suspect. | ||
| 40days40years Senior Member Username: 40days40years Post Number: 2285 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 172.194.28.167 |
jia/robert says: I was pro-irak-war, when it first started. but today we have enough evidence that this war was senseless. it did not bring the espected results (and it never will). Saddam had been circumventing sanctions and UN inspections + working on nukes and WMD chemical weopons. He basically gave us the finger for 10 years and he did try to kill an American president, even Clinton talked about taking Iraq out. He sent thousands$$$ to the families of suicide bombers in Palestine and yeah, his govt. did meet with high ranking Alqaeda terrorists. The guy was like a little Hitler I don't think you can cluck about superior europeon morality in not opposing him. So the war did not bring intended results it is not like you get a guarantee when going off to war. The problem is now there is a civil war there. We can win but it takes more force then were willing to use. It is tough for America to win things like this because the Americans overwhelming compassion limits his abilities. AF, we stopped apartheid for your people I think you owe America a huge debt of gratitude, are we gonna get it from you? NAAAAAAHH? Will you thank God? - oh I forgot he is a philosophy. | ||
| anti_fascist Intermediate Member Username: anti_fascist Post Number: 182 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 80.119.65.226 |
Shame 40, eating all the spin from the Bush admin and Fox News as if it were short cake! Pointless to argue now, but in two years' time when the new admin will start rooting out the rot, and the stench reaches Kansas, you are welcome to come and cry your heart out to me on a visit to Cape Town. Maybe you'll even thank the Anti-fascist for having braced you for the shock  In the meantime, don't flatter yourself that that Apartheid was stopped by the US, ho-ho, South Africans stopped Apartheid through the glorious struggle against white opression,and social injustice.That's why we're proud of our Constitution: it was bought with the blood of the struggle for all citizens, and that's why the folks like Rosenthal (ACDP) get less than 2% of the vote. BTW, there is a great opinion piece in the New York Times by Paul Krugman today, on the nefast influence of the Religious ultra right in the Bush Admin."For God's Sake" http://select.nytimes.com/gst/tsc.html?URI=http://select.nytimes.com/2007/04/13/opinion/13krugman.html&OQ=_rQ3D1Q26hp&OP=10e5943dQ2FbQ7BAVb2OQ20__2bLQ3BQ3B1bQ3BlbQ2Bzb_t8m8_mbQ2BzfQ20Q27d!(mQ3FQ3C2!P Do read. I'm pleased to see my arguments vindicated in the NY Times.  | ||
| jia Member Username: jia Post Number: 72 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 80.109.163.152 |
Saddam had been circumventing sanctions and UN inspections + working on nukes and WMD chemical weopons. there has been evidence, that saddam had NEITHER nukes NOR chemical weapons when the war started. he had no possibilities to produce nukes the US army nor the UN inspectors have found any of these. secondly Al-Quaida was a thread also for the iraq and Saddams dictatorhsip. therefore saddam fought the al-quaida. only now, because of a lack of security and "order" al-qaida has mre influence in iraq the ever before. but not only kaida. third you americans must ask yourself a honest question: is it your right to start a war wherever on earth you like it, just to support your interests? isnt this dominionism in its worst? its enough proove that the white house has given false informations to the american population and to the world to start this senseless war. to compare saddam with hitler is a weak argument. i do agree that he was a evil dictator. but he was at NO time a thread for europe or the USA and he did not attack the USA. thats a simple fact. the other important fact is, that saddam was a monster created by the western world (USA, and europe) - he was a dictator created by the west! i doubt that Bush has different interests than economical interests by the war in iraq and i do doubt that this man is a born again christian! Bush shall be sued and sentenced for this war and for the chaos he created with his headless and foolish iraq war. i promise you, that this will be a desaster like vietnam! but - as i said - this is just my opinion. no hard feelings please! | ||
| jia Member Username: jia Post Number: 73 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 80.109.163.152 |
and, by the way - if the posession of nukes or chemical weapons is the reason for a war, than why is it ok for the USA, england, france, etc... to have those sort of weapons? | ||
| 40days40years Senior Member Username: 40days40years Post Number: 2292 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 65.147.115.192 |
ever hear of 9-11? | ||
| 40days40years Senior Member Username: 40days40years Post Number: 2293 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 65.147.115.192 |
jia/robert please turn on your spell checker or type your message up in Word or whatever before. Not knocking you I only speak 1 language myself. Saddam did use chemical weopons to kill Kurds in the past. Point two, this is not about taking dominion. We did not use nukes or use fire bombing tacticts we used on Tokyo or Dresden. If we wanted to take dominion it would have been accomplished by now. My dear uncle a colonel from South Carolina? his first response to everything is nuke it! We are not doing that in fact the critics of Islam appear to be right about the hostile nature of that religion. | ||
| 40days40years Senior Member Username: 40days40years Post Number: 2294 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 65.147.115.192 |
Also jia/robert if you have problems with this war, talk to Dubya/W (they did try to kill his dad) do not talk to Americans this is W's baby, maybe he is doing Gods will how do you know the Lord won't say good job George? I don't know. As an American repub Bush sucks in so many ways but they are estimating that 5000 hardcore terrorist have been taken care of so he gets an A+ in this regard. No attacks! In so many ways I am furious with Bush but not for Euro reasons but for American. Let us hope AF is wrong and hardcore socialists do not take control of the White House in two years. (Message edited by 40days40years on April 14, 2007) | ||
| anti_fascist Intermediate Member Username: anti_fascist Post Number: 184 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 80.119.65.226 |
Hi Robert, I agree with your post no 72 and 73, would add Israel on the list of nuclear capacity nations.And please don't feel that you need to change your spelling, we all get your message loud and clear. I would wonder how much we will understand if 40days writes in German...(40 that was unnecessary, we all know that you're in love with the right wing, but you needn't stoop so low. Rather come up with intelligent arguments!) 40, Saddam did use chemical weapons against the kurds and against Iran. The sorry fact is that those weapons were supplied by the USA in breach of the Geneva Convention, with the hope that Saddam will use them to do harm on Iran. Just like the CIA that financed Bin Laden in Afganinstan and supported the Taliban in the hope that they will fight 'communism'. Well, there you've got it, the fight against 'communism/terrorism' is the propaganda platform with which the USA defends its imperialistic ideals of planetary hedgemony. The ideology that drives and justifies this is called Christian Dominionism, and it is as pernicious as Stalinism, Maoism and Nazism. You may not be aware of this yet, but if ever you travelled through the rust belt of the USA you will see the social consequences of those policies, and realise that millions of Americans are also victims of Dominionism's economic theories, just like millions of Russians were victims of Stalin.Bush is behaving like Mugabe, and has already torn up the US Constitution for all practical reasons. Unfortunately, you are going to have to stomach this for another 2 years, as it is obvious that the Democrats in Congress want the situation to really rot, so that they can appear less corrupt and callous than the GOP. Stalin eliminated people by shooting them. The Christian Right is killing people in the USA by denying them health care, acces to descent jobs, outsourcing the economy, and not responding to natural disasters like hurricane Katrina. Their next step is to dismantle Medicare, and public schools. Soon, you will have massive spread of infectious disease like TB in your country, and this will kill millions. Maybe Stalin was a lot more humane than the Christian Fascists afterall.http://www.alternet.org/story/50366/ I'm amazed that you can imagine that Jesus would advocate the killing of thousands of people who are only legitimately defending their livelyhoods | ||
| pilgrim Intermediate Member Username: pilgrim Post Number: 461 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 195.93.21.129 |
40days40years, You wrote,"jia/robert please turn on your spell checker or type your message up in Word or whatever before." I have a suggestion, why do you not start a new thread on 'The Cuckoo's Nest' called 'English Lessons/Classes'? You could post all our english errors there as long as you correct them as well in the same post. It would be helpful if you could also try to explain why we made those errors. We might even allow to make fun of our english mistakes in the 'The Cuckoo's Nest' as long as you help us not to make the same mistake ever again. If you did this I might visit the 'The Cuckoo's Nest' more often and perhaps I might even post something on that thread. (Message edited by pilgrim on April 14, 2007) | ||
| jia Member Username: jia Post Number: 74 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 80.109.163.152 |
ever hear of 9-11? it had NOTHING to do with Saddam. It was used long time as one "reason" for the Irak war. Even the White House had to say, that Saddam had no conections to 9-11... so why are you mentioning it? Saddam did use chemical weapons against the kurds and against Iran. this was 20(!!) years ago! why did the US-Army not march into irak then? why did they not capture Saddam in the first Irak war? Fact is that neither the US Army NOR the UN inspectors did find ANY evidence for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq - neither before nor after the US marched in. So the reason that the Bush administration gave for the war is a bunch of crap! My dear uncle a colonel from South Carolina? his first response to everything is nuke it! yeah - kill everyone who oposes your vision of a new world order or your interests... when did i hear this last time? i remember - it was a report about nazi-germany. We are not doing that in fact the critics of Islam appear to be right about the hostile nature of that religion. Saddam Hussein was the leader of a national socialistic party called "Baath". religion was NOT the driving force behind Saddams reign and acts. 40, i agree that Saddam was a tyrant, and that its good that he is gone. but does this justify the insanity of the iraq war? if the americans would be concerned about taking out every tyrant on this earth, why did they not do anything against idi amin, or in rwanda or against mugabe? Bush has different motives behind this whole insanity. history has already proofen his "official" reasons wrong. As a Christian i am wondering how someone who says he is a born-again believer (i mean Mr.Bush) can sleep in peace at night after beeing responsible for this insane and senseless killing! Thats my only intention of mentioning this at all. | ||
| pilgrim Intermediate Member Username: pilgrim Post Number: 462 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 195.93.21.129 |
jia aka Robert and 40days40years aka unknown, Look at the following website, http://www.theresistancemanifesto.com/ What do you think? | ||
| pilgrim Intermediate Member Username: pilgrim Post Number: 463 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 195.93.21.129 |
40 days40years and jia, Look at these websites about the Skulls and Bones secret Society and the Bohemian Grove. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6905368727547377435&q=skulls+and+bones&hl=en http://www.bilderberg.org/skulbone.htm http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCDs9Vs2iYM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJqPowtmK2M http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2318794562988157677&q=bohemian+Grove&hl=en I would like to see your opinions. | ||
| pilgrim Intermediate Member Username: pilgrim Post Number: 464 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 195.93.21.129 |
Please read Revelation 13:16-18 He causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads, and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or[f] the name of the beast, or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man: His number is 666. Here is another interesting article, Title: Rockefeller Admitted Elite Goal Of Microchipped Population http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2007/290107rockefellergoal.htm You can also look at this website, http://users.cybertime.net/~ajgood/chipindex.html | ||
| pilgrim Intermediate Member Username: pilgrim Post Number: 465 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 195.93.21.129 |
Here is another short video about the Bohemian Grove. http://www.infowars.com/video/previews/grove/ood7min_wm.htm | ||
| jia Member Username: jia Post Number: 75 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 80.109.163.152 |
pilgrim, i have heared about these things already, and i dont know really what to think about it, to be honest... i am not a "conspiracy guy" so to say... but there are definetely some interesting thoughts and things that you have linked. only God knows what of it is true and what not... I am just only shocked that i have suported the idea of a irak war. when i was breaking free from the totalitarian and submissive mindset that i have receiveed under WoF and EveryNation, i started to question some things. and, like i said, i do not understand how I and other Christians could ever suport the Irak War. sorry MCM and 40, i did not want to pick on you. its just my opinion about the issue, nothing more... regards R_Unknown | ||
| pilgrim Intermediate Member Username: pilgrim Post Number: 467 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 195.93.21.129 |
jia, You said,"only God knows what of it is true and what not..." I agree with you but at least we know that president Bush involvement with the Skulls and Bones Secret Society is truth because Mr Bush himself admitted to it in the following video. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6905368727547377435&q=skulls+and+bones&hl=en Here is some more information about the Skulls and Bones. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skull_and_Bones I have also read these interesting websites I believe that the chart is still under construction what do you think? http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~emcd/TheFrontOfIt.pdf http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~emcd/TheFrontOfIt.htm I felt shocked when I read all this information. You can also find more information about the Skulls and Bones and the Bohemian Grove in the google videos. Blessings pilgrim | ||
| 40days40years Senior Member Username: 40days40years Post Number: 2301 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 172.192.72.22 |
robert I understand you being against the war I just don't see how so many are so absolutely sure that God did not get sick of Saddam and the Baath party doing what they do. I know America can not be the worlds police man but then folks say why did you not take out Amin or stop genocide in Sudan? Mixed messages from the world. Interesting links Pilgrim but I tend to think of skull and bones as just some drinking Yale kids who join the dorky group that their dads were members of. Alot of those kids are just goofing off and not all that spiritual. I kind of feel the same way about the Bohemian grove. I tend to think their just a bunch of super rich guys who are not that spiritual. Their little bonfire of burning cares away is just camp mumbo jumbo they don't believe in themselves. Just my opinion. | ||
| pilgrim Intermediate Member Username: pilgrim Post Number: 468 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 195.93.21.129 |
40days40years, You wrote,"Alot of those kids are just goofing off and not all that spiritual. I kind of feel the same way about the Bohemian grove. I tend to think their just a bunch of super rich guys who are not that spiritual." I wrote the above messages yesterday because many people believe that President Bush is a born again christian. Jia wrote, "i doubt that Bush has different interests than economical interests by the war in iraq and i do doubt that this man is a born again christian! " I also doubt that President Bush can be a member the Secret Society called, Skulls and Bones and be a born again Christian. I wish that he was a real christian. It would be so nice to have a real christian in the white house. Regarding the war. I am a pacifist so I do NOT believe in war or violence to solve problems and I try to remain neutral in any war. I also do not agree with sentencing criminals to Capital Punishment. I am glad that they have not reintroduced Capital Punishment in the UK. Many mistakes had been done in the past in many countries with capital punishment and many people were just victims of miscarriages of justice. | ||
| jia Member Username: jia Post Number: 79 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 80.109.163.152 |
I just don't see how so many are so absolutely sure that God did not get sick of Saddam and the Baath party doing what they do. of course God gets sick with tyranny. with every tyranny. But what do you want to tell me with this? is it the duty of american soldiers to impart/excute "Gods will" on Saddam and generally on earth? this argumentation is a very dangerous road. thats the reason i said this is dominionism in its worst. i ment "christian dominionism" like EN and others are promoting it. | ||
| 40days40years Senior Member Username: 40days40years Post Number: 2321 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 172.191.63.60 |
jia/robert I like your posts in general but that is nonsense. What dominionism? If it was dominionism? take the oil fields and shove the arabs out into the desert with their sheep and camels! That is not happening. What is the differance between Saddam and Hitler? You approve going after Hitler but not Saddam? Look this is not easy stuff robert/jia. Jesus told parables about kings sizing up their opponents before going to battle and if they thought the price was to high those kings would cut deals. That is what we did with China and the Soviet Union of old. We sized up our opponent and said they have nukes and can deliver them so we made deals. Now you are getting self righteous and saying why cannot Iran or Iraq have nukes themselves? It is easy to be Sweeeedish or Dutch robert/jia. | ||
| 40days40years Senior Member Username: 40days40years Post Number: 2322 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 172.191.63.60 |
Pilgrim the stuff George Bush Jr. did as a snot nosed kid at Yale was before he became a born again Christian. Pilgrim I do believe an antichritst will come who will want to chip us and go to a cashless society and he will give very good reasons for his views but some idiot rich boys camping out and drinking is not the resurection of the Thule society. | ||
| pilgrim Intermediate Member Username: pilgrim Post Number: 473 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 195.93.21.129 |
40days40years, As far as I know President Bush is still a bonesman ie a member of the Skulls and Bones Secret Society. http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1314.cfm | ||
| anti_fascist New member Username: anti_fascist Post Number: 5 Registered: 4-2007 Posted From: 80.119.65.226 |
40, you seem to be having serious problems. Just looking at your recent posts, I'm worried for you buddy, even if we are from totally opposite sides of the check board. Any prayer requests? want to share problems? | ||
| 40days40years Senior Member Username: 40days40years Post Number: 2347 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 207.62.190.7 |
AF I am just saying I don't think America is trying to take dominion when it comes to Iraq. We are trying to give the Iraqis a chance to have a decent government. Our troops are building schools and doing all sorts of humanitarian things in Iraq. It is not like were the Romans leveling everything. Pilgrim I guess the question is should I take a secret society serious? Take the masons for instance, on the surface it looks ominous but I have the impression that most Masons don't even believe their own Mumbo Jumbo. Fraternities also have their own rituals and junk, could it be that skull and bones is just a glorified fraternity?, secret passwords, and ridiculous gobbledy gook like swallowing a lizard. I mean these people do network with each other and help each other in business but? | ||
| osakadan Advanced Member Username: osakadan Post Number: 857 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 222.144.174.241 |
Once the US and its allies (lowering my head in shame) have complete financial dominance, we will be out of there quick smart. | ||
| pilgrim Intermediate Member Username: pilgrim Post Number: 474 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 195.93.21.129 |
40days40years, You wrote," I mean these people do network with each other and help each other in business but?" I believe that Satan will use the false church/ religion and these Secret Societies to bring the kingdom of the antichrist and the mark of the beast. I had read that most freemasons do not know that they are serving lucifer till they get promoted to grade 32 or 33. In the same way some people might become member of Secret Societies with Masonic rituals like the Skulls and Bones without knowing the whole agenda. I do not believe that someone can be a member of a Secret Society like freemasons and the Skulls and Bones with some very weird masonic rituals and be a genuine christian at the same time. Probably president Bush is one of the born again 'bonesmen' from the Skulls and Bones Secret Society but NOT a born again christian. The website in my post 473 says" This type of ritual is classic Satanism. Anton LaVey states, in his book The Satanic Rituals: Companion To The Satanic Bible, (p. 57), "The ceremony of rebirth takes place in a large coffin..This is similar to the coffin symbolism that...is found in most lodge rituals." Make no mistake about it: Any organization which utilizes this coffin ritual to simulate rebirth is practicing Satanism, including Skull and Bones. The Skull and Bones believes that on the night of initiation, the initiate "dies to the world and be born again into the Order..." (Esquire Magazine, September, 1977, p. 89). Remember Hitler's belief that he had been born anew after his ritualistic initiation and training? This term is a common one in Satanism. During the 1988 Presidential Campaign, a TV reporter asked Vice-President Bush if he were a Christian. Bush initially stammered, but then said, "if you mean born again, then, yes, I am a Christian". Vice-President Bush answered this question in a very expert manner, simultaneously being true to his own occult foundation while misleading innocent, trusting Christians." I also believe that people who had allegiance to a Secret Society that is not equally welcoming or open to everyone are not the best individuals to serve any country. In a proper democracy, the government should be our servants and their allegiance should be to all the people who live in that country and not to a Secret Society. How can we be sure that an individual who is chosen to be a president of a country and is also a member of a Secret Society where they have to swear allegiance to each other would not use a position of power to further the interests of the Secret Society above the interest and wellbeing of everyone in that country? Look at the chart in one the last two websites in my post number 467 . These societies seem to be all interrelated to each other. I also wonder why some famous political and religious leaders like President Bush, and Benny Hinn etc do the following hand signal called "Horned Hand or The Mano Cornuto : This gesture is the Satanic salute, a sign of recognition between and allegiance of members of Satanism or other unholy groups". I had seem that hand signal in the following website and several others websites and videos so often. http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Wicca%20&%20Witchcraft/signs_of_satan.htm You can also look at this website http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/george_bushjr_13.htm | ||
| speakword2004 Senior Member Username: speakword2004 Post Number: 1259 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 196.25.255.250 |
Steve has clarified his position: "While I boldly call for believers to get involved in all levels of civil gov and to exert godly influence in every area of life, this does not mean the church should rule the state or that the apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers should function as presidents, senators, MPs, governors, and judges…” http://everynation.wordpress.com/2007/04/09/is-separation-of-church-and-state-in-the-bible/#comments My question in reference to previous EN teachings and its embrace of the Wagner models of church and economy is the following: Des EN believe that it will be able to separate its own Apostles etc. from governing by proxy in that it has previously indicated that these presidents, governers etc. will be members in submission to the EN church? | ||
| anti_fascist New member Username: anti_fascist Post Number: 22 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 80.119.65.226 |
You have great perspicacity compatriot! This is where push comes to shove, and the smoke screen behind which Dominionists hide. Judging from talks with Cape Town reconstructionists, the Church is simply an alibi for a complete take over by big corporate interests, and especially non listed, private 'family' affairs, like the one that is HP's main financier, and investment broker for HP/EN's leadership. | ||
| 40days40years Senior Member Username: 40days40years Post Number: 2387 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 17.184.103.245 |
speak I don't have a problem with a pastor serving as a president or senator.....etc. if he is elected to the office. That is kind of funny though that Murrells opinion does not seem to jive with Laffoons which he publicly states or Phil B's or many members of the Apostolic roundtable which EN use to support. So which belief predominates? | ||
| verduin New member Username: verduin Post Number: 6 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 68.88.138.246 |
My comment is awaiting moderation...... http://everynation.wordpress.com/2007/04/09/is-separation-of-church-and-state-in-the-bible/ moose | ||
| verduin New member Username: verduin Post Number: 7 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 68.88.138.246 |
oops comments page | ||
| verduin New member Username: verduin Post Number: 8 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 68.88.138.246 |
Sorry for the confusion. My comments/questions awaiting moderation before the powers that be at the EN Plog will publicly post them (or not)are as follows: Steve, Thanks for your clarifications. Do you mind clarifying further the following? When the prophet of Every Nation (Jim Laffoon) declares that God is “raising up a generation of children who I (Jim Laffoon) believe if my generation (which specifically includes you, Steve Murrell) is faithful to reach nations, the next generation (25-30 years of age and under) can begin to rule nations,” exactly what does he mean? When that same prophet of God and Every Nation declares “It is my passion…. What I am saying is the nations, the earth are up for grabs,” exactly what does he mean? When Jim Laffoon asks and then declares “But what in every nation? I am convinced that our generation (compared to David and which specifically includes you, Steve Murrell) has been called together to reach every nation in the world to bring together every ingredient they will need for our Solomons to rule it.” What exactly does he mean and do you, Steve, believe that? When the prophet declares the mandate and purpose for Every Nation is “To birth a generation to rule the earth.” Is that, Steve, your mandate, your purpose? “I (God, per the prophet Jim Laffoon) bestow upon you a new name (Every Nation) and make you (Every Nation) my (God’s) crown….make you my diadem.” Is Every Nation God’s crown and diadem? Will your kids be made ready to rule what you have reached? How will they be made ready and how will they rule what you have reached? Is “the ultimate purpose of God to raise up a generation who, because you (Steve, and your generation of leaders in Every Nation, including Phil Bonasso), have reached every nation can begin to rule every nation?” Exactly what does it mean to reach every nation? Exactly what does it mean to rule every nation? What does it mean when the prophet of Every Nation (Jim Laffoon) declares “God wants to do something where we (Every Nation) not only reach nations but we (Every Nation) LITERALLY begin to possess them?” If a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ is striving to be salt and light in a dark and decaying world by his or her faith, obedience, witness and lifestyle unto the Lord, does that mean that we (His followers individually and/or collectively) must get up, get involved and represent Him in all areas of life (including the political realm) or we will be considered disobedient by just sitting around waiting for the world to change? Thank you for your time and attention to clarifying the above as it relates to your recent blog entries and comments regarding Church and State. I look forward to Steve Murrell's response. | ||
| speakword2004 Senior Member Username: speakword2004 Post Number: 1284 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 196.25.255.250 |
" . . .this does not mean the church should rule the state or that the apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers should function as presidents, senators, MPs, governors, and judges…” Steve perhaps you could clarify the RULE BY PROXY thing that seems to come out of Lafoon's speech which is very New Order of the Latter Rain in its style and content. And what about the world being compared to excrement? | ||
| speakword2004 Senior Member Username: speakword2004 Post Number: 1285 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 198.54.202.250 |
My guess is that Steve is putting forward a soft form of dominionism rather than the more rabid Theonomic/Reconstructionist stuff that people like Grant support. BTW these books were being sold at Bethel Wordl Outreach Centre in Nashville until a few years ago. BTW The idea that Christ will return based on our occupation of the world i.e. taking full dominion is dangerously millernarian and I feel contrary to the ideals of Postmillenialist thought which belives that that any agnecy of revival or return of Christ is subject to the work of The Holy Spirit and not the agnecy or political craftiness of man. The problem that Steve has is he has not explained whether there is space for secular leaders as well within secular government. Sure, if we have democratic election of Christians to office forming the majority, can they exclude not Christians from secular office? The idea of Christians in government has been around for a long time in EN/HP/Maranatha. | ||
| speakword2004 Senior Member Username: speakword2004 Post Number: 1286 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 196.25.255.250 |
Perhaps we need to broaden the debate by introducing some criticisms. I must say that these articles linked below are not all good and some make broad generalisations. Unfortunately, I would be willing to accept that EN under Steve Murrell was still getting to grips with these issues and did not have an official dominionist outlook if it wasn't for the Laffoon speech and other indications of NOLR and Reconstructionist influence: http://www.everynation.org/en/top/about-us/faqs/what-is-your-position-on-christian-dominion-andor-reformation-of-society.html Here's a good link to critiques (Christians bear in mind that some of it is Liberal-secular: http://www.theocracywatch.org/dominionism.htm | ||
| anti_fascist New member Username: anti_fascist Post Number: 2 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 80.119.65.226 |
EN now denies adhering to Dominion Theology teachings, NOLR etc. Yet, anyone that has researched their materials, attended their courses knows that this is NOT TRUE! Did you know that this is a cult technique aimed at manipulation and mind control?Called Interspersal Technique, it is commonly known by hypnotists, and psychologists who use hypno-therapy Click on this link and learn more, your hackles will sure rise!http://www.hiddenmysteries.com/freebook/neuro/sutphen.html | ||
| youngnmighty New member Username: youngnmighty Post Number: 7 Registered: 7-2006 Posted From: 155.232.128.10 |
Anti-fascist sounds as angry as i am/ was. how can i get hold of you...? exchanging ideas with other ex-ers helped me to gain some perspective which guided me towards peace of mind... | ||
| jia New member Username: jia Post Number: 4 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 80.109.163.152 |
EN now denies adhering to Dominion Theology teachings, NOLR etc. Yet, anyone that has researched their materials, attended their courses knows that this is NOT TRUE! EN works after a certain strategy. its not so, that they will always ignore critisism. i found, that some of their leaders have an open ear for critisism. they even admit that the things one says are right. Kevin York told me that it is right, that the past of Rice Brooks and Bonasso in MCM is problematic. He also agreed that the conection with Peter Wagner is problematic (and told me that "Brooks understood that Wagner shares "weird ideas""). Kevin York also agreed that there is controle and abuse problem within EN, through a all too strong idea about discipleship and submission (sheperding). I had also some honest talks (at least from my side) with some EN pastors / missionaires, and was offered the possibility to talk to Michael Swain, Wolfi Eckleben and Jeff Bullock about what I have discovered (the connection of EN with NOLR trhough Peter Wagners NAR and through MCM). But i have soon realized that this interest to listen to me is NOT out an attitude of reform and change. Why should a Michael Swain who lives from EN listen to a "weirdo" like me? Why should they listen to me? I mean they profit from EN. They live from this system of building "churches". They are the succeders and i am the losser, so to say. The intention to listen to critics and to critisism is to learn to KNOW the arguments of the oposition and to understand where the concerns lie. Because only then it is possible to REACT on it. I understood, that everything that i will say or every information i will provide for them will be USED to create arguments against it and to react on it. MCM was NEVER mentioned before or during the merger with HP (despite the fact that ALL the big MSI/EN leaders have been discipled and have been leaders already IN MCM!) Now - because people know - they admit that they came from this background, but they also tell you the story that makes them look good ("We saw the abuse, and we seperated from MCM")... NAR and Wagner was never really mentioned before (although Brooks, Daniels, Laffon where conected with him through the roundtable!! and Wagner was teaching at conferences and "school of ministry" at least until 2003/4), but now, that people understand the esoteric and cultic heresies Wagner spreads, all of a sudden Rice Brooks is an expert in hermeneutic and "understands the weird things Wagner teaches" NOLR was NEVER mentioned before (despite the fact that Bonasso LOVES Branham and EN IS a hardcore NOLR movement that teaches, lives and spreads NOLR heresy). but now, that people challenge them on it, they have nothing to do with it. Its the same stategy that they follow with dominion theology, recosntructionism, sheperding... EN is in all of this BIG TIME. I have stoped to talk to them about their problems. if they call themselves "sheperds of the flock", than its their duty to do their research and to protect the flock. My experience is, that if you provide them with information, they listen to you, but they go on as before, and deny publicly the same things. its a dangerous and cultic strategy! Its not reform. its crisis management, damage controle. its not christian! its unethical! and its deceiptive! thinks R_Unknown (Message edited by jia on April 26, 2007) | ||
| jia New member Username: jia Post Number: 5 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 80.109.163.152 |
they tell you "we are reforming", but at the same time, when people leave, they call them "cut of from the vine" or "apostate"... this happened here in Austria only some months ago! SHAME on THEM! | ||
| anti_fascist New member Username: anti_fascist Post Number: 13 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 80.119.64.12 |
Brilliant post Robert! You've said it all. So why do they then bother to listen to us? Two strategies: 1) They think they can win you back. In this case they will be very abusive, and try to cast out the 'demon' of rebellion that's taken hold of you. In Scientology it is called an auditing session, and can go on all night if they want to. In HP this is known to happen as well... Anybody that has gone through this is an emotional wreck for months, and after such a session, they needn't exert much pressure to make you toe the line, as fear of another session will drive you crazy. This is what cults have learnt from the Chinese communists. 2)They know that you've seen through their scam, but need to find out exactly how much you know and where you learnt it, so that they can devise a damage control strategy. In this case they will act has humble 'servant' leaders, concerned that you could find them off track; but in fact, they are trying to fish as much info as to your present relations and activities, as this will help them to launch a campaign to discredit you publicly. In Scientology this is called black propaganda. | ||
| iamspartacus New member Username: iamspartacus Post Number: 1 Registered: 2-2007 Posted From: 85.195.119.14 |
I have taken a look at the dominion/reconstruction argument recently and thought I would make a few comments. When I was in MCM it was a hot topic, and to question it was not fruitful; however, one pastor told me that not every pastor agreed with the extremes. Still, the teaching was overt, and it was very clear that the ministry was seeking a reconstructionist direction by their deeds. However, I find it difficult in believing that EN is dominion oriented. I have looked through their FAQ, their blogs and like speakword I am satisfied with Murrell’s position. Still, this is not the main thing for me. I simply do not see the local churches jumping on the political bandwagon pushing their members towards reconstruction or promoting such candidates. Unless they are meeting secretly in caves as the EN-Illuminate I doubt that there is a covert agenda. Face it, ruling the world is quite a task. Of course some pastors may have leanings in that direction, but the culture has changed. I cannot take it seriously, and I am one who does not support the teaching. One more thing, someone - maybe from Fnet – posted a good response in Murrell’s blog, and I was somewhat pleased that he answered. Then someone said that they posted – I do not know if it was the same person – a very caustic response that was never published. This was a golden chance to engage their main leader – something never possible in MCM – and someone closed the door. Why be belligerent? I don’t get it. Hats off to my Fnet friends who have been able to engage EN leaders behind the scenes. This will help EN open its ears to constructive criticism. FYI, I am pretrib | ||
| forword New member Username: forword Post Number: 5 Registered: 12-2005 Posted From: 68.52.214.120 |
What does it matter if the local churches are not jumping on the political bandwagon...as long as they give their 10% to EN. (Message edited by forword on April 27, 2007) | ||
| jia New member Username: jia Post Number: 6 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 80.109.163.152 |
as i said already very often: i doubt that anyone (perhaps only some few) works out of bad attitude. i do believe that the most really want to please God (but thats what the pharisees also thought). But somehow the thing went off the track, and i doubt that it will be back again. in my personal opinion pastors who do not share the extreme views shared by the top En leaders through books, conferences and sermons should seriously consider drawing their churches back out of EN, like some already did. i was a pastor in HP and then MSI (now EN). my church has benefitted NOTHING from the EN group of churches. there has been NO benefit at all. the only "reason" why i did not draw the church out (despite the fact that i did not know then what i know now) is that i believed n what they told us: that we needed covering, realtionship/ friendship and spiritual family. ALL (and i hope you EN leaders read this here) promises have been false promises. in my darkest hours there was NO covering, NO family and NO friendship. But even if this would have been the case: theologicaly there is no reason to suport EN. in my opinion the whole movement should just disband. pastors who have this relationships will have them afterwards anyhow, and vice versa. why is it so important anyhow to have a international movement of churches? what does this help? i still do not see the benefit of such a thing! | ||
| matt_hatter Junior Member Username: matt_hatter Post Number: 40 Registered: 5-2006 Posted From: 216.226.180.2 |
A-F, your post 182 screwed up another thread, making it impossible to read. Please, if you wish for all to recogize how brilliant that you seem to think you are, how about going here and learn to use the \link feature. This way we can ignore your links, but they at least won't screw up the thread!  Love, zzzzzzzzz Matt zzzzzzzzz | ||
| verduin New member Username: verduin Post Number: 1 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 70.235.181.217 |
iamspartacus, If you are referring to my post on Sunday, April 22, at 6:53 p.m. being "the very caustic response that was never published," you are correct that, at least so far, there has been no response either publicly on the blog or privately via my email. I disagree that it was caustic or belligerent and was certainly not meant to close any doors (although I am unaware of what door that is "open" to communicate with Murrell, Broocks, Laffoon or Bonasso). If Steve Murrell (or Broocks, Laffoon or Bonasso for that matter) prefers not to address my questions publicly on the blog, he/they certainly are welcome to do so privately via my email which was given via the blog. I attempted to have a polite but direct tone and cannot apologize for Jim Laffoon's quotes - he is the recognized prophet for EN and his "Word from God" given at the 2004 World Conference should be owned up to, clarified or denied. These are legitimate and sincere questions to the president of EN and, if EN publicly denies any adherence to dominionism/reconstruction, demand public clarification. Are you familiar with Jim Laffoon and have you listened to his prophetic word from God given at the 2004 conference? It is inconsistent with EN's faqs, blogs and "official" position. As speakword notes, the NOLR/NAR doctrines and teachings are inherent to the overall EN environment and framework and, I believe, the dominionist/theocracy mindset was planted and cultivated in the EN founders and leaders many years ago. Just to be clear, I am all for debate, dialogue, communication and candor with any and all EN leaders and laymen, but experience tells me not to count on it. moose | ||
| dust New member Username: dust Post Number: 17 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 68.52.214.120 |
I read Veruin's post. I have the same questions. I was THERE. I must tell you, the scales were already slipping off my eyes and I was very uneasy throughout the entire conference....either the underlying feel and theology was showing or I had a better sensitivity to the Holy Spirit, the spirit of truth. When Jim Lafoon spoke, I can tell you where I was sitting..I can tell you the look on my face...I can remember whispering to my husband...I can remember my outrage, and the numbness of the audience, like they didn't realize what they were hearing or cheering. These are VALID questions and must be answered. Every Nation has been called out and to task on this speech many times. It's as if the TRUE EN overplayed its card, was a bit TOO sure of itself, and thought the world was ready to see what they were really about. And, now they are backtracking.... I've said it before, and I'll say it again...Steve Murrell is NOT the guy on the white horse. He stood and applauded the Lafoon speech. I wouldn't be surprised if he wasn't the author. I seriously DOUBT that Jim Lafoon wrote his own speeches at those conferences. I sure that they are planned out, and every word is meant to influence, and rule. After all in order to get people to reach and rule, you have RULE THEM FIRST. P.S. The only thing that makes Verduin's post here look caustic is the bold ALL CAPS. That kind of font may look hostile, but his actual content is direct and valid. | ||
| anti_fascist New member Username: anti_fascist Post Number: 15 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 80.119.64.12 |
Hello Hatter! thanks for the helpful advice, and sorry for causing you problems;  | ||
| matt_hatter Junior Member Username: matt_hatter Post Number: 42 Registered: 5-2006 Posted From: 24.214.93.12 |
| ||
| matt_hatter Junior Member Username: matt_hatter Post Number: 47 Registered: 5-2006 Posted From: 24.214.93.12 |
You know, A-F, I don't think folks would be near as frustrated if you would, in plain language, just tell us your PERSONAL spiritual journey. I realize that is not some pre-requisite to be on factnet, but it just helps understand where a person is coming from. For instance, O-dan and I are on opposite ends of things spiritually and politically. However, we have developed a friendship, as I know where he is coming from, and visa-versa. Like I said, you don't owe this to anyone, but I have asked the same of Phillip in the past, as I see a lot of similarities in both of you actually. A lot of talk about spiritual/political matters, but little about a relationship with God. I like reading what intrinsically moves a person, not what the New York Times says. It is a newspaper that has lost its way, and many in America believe that, BTW. |
