Almost Half Of Amerisanians Say We Should Be Christian Nation

[muichimotsu]

Yes we are to share the grace of God.. but being involved in politics doesn't translate into "not being of the world" - but it does qualify as bing "in the world".



We also believe that the Romans reference of "any government is place by God" has been wrongly applied.

2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities 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. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority?

There are rulers that are a terror to good and promote the bad. These aren't established by God but by man.

Great points to deal with. Thanks for the input.

Involvement in politics should be tempered by a consideration of how serious one takes it, regardless of religiosity or lack thereof, I think we can agree on moderation

Anyone can believe they are doing right even if they're going against the government, the whole point of the verse seems to be that God is the ultimate authority and can establish a government, but also take it down if need be.

Fundamentally there's an authoritarian tinge to Abrahamic faiths, that you need to obey, even if the sentiment sounds good that you shouldn't obey out of fear, but love of the law. It still assumes the law is somehow infallible in a way, which is dangerous

 

[Kenny]

Involvement in politics should be tempered by a consideration of how serious one takes it, regardless of religiosity or lack thereof, I think we can agree on moderation

Anyone can believe they are doing right even if they're going against the government, the whole point of the verse seems to be that God is the ultimate authority and can establish a government, but also take it down if need be.

Fundamentally there's an authoritarian tinge to Abrahamic faiths, that you need to obey, even if the sentiment sounds good that you shouldn't obey out of fear, but love of the law. It still assumes the law is somehow infallible in a way, which is dangerous

Yes... when there is perfect love, there is no fear. Fear is manipulative and controlling.

But, no. God doesn't always establish the government in as much as He gave government to the people in Genesis 1:26.

The key always is the people, for an example:

2 Chronicles 7:14
If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

Notice that they key is "the people praying". God can tear down evil governments but people have the important part to play.

there are other scriptural examples.

 

[muichimotsu]

Yes... when there is perfect love, there is no fear. Fear is manipulative and controlling.

But, no. God doesn't always establish the government in as much as He gave government to the people in Genesis 1:26.

The key always is the people, for an example:

2 Chronicles 7:14
If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

Notice that they key is "the people praying". God can tear down evil governments but people have the important part to play.

there are other scriptural examples.

Perfection is despair, perfect love has no agency, because there's no volition to do it, you just love unconditionally, which is no longer freely given

AWful convenient to give God so much power and then essentially divest it of any real responsibility even though it's supposed to be sovereign and we're, at best, stewards, not anything possessing of equal authority, otherwise we'd be God

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

No, not really. “One nation, indivisible, with liberty …… “ was the original writing. No God involved at all. The “indivisible” was in there all along, since the pledge didn’t exist in revolutionary times, but instead was only written in 1892, after the Civil War. The “Founding Fathers” had been dead and buried for most of a century before.

It stayed that way for 62 years, until Eisenhower added “under God”, in 1954, merely to distinguish our pledge from anything the Soviets might say. (Not that communism is inherently atheistic, but the autocrats in charge of the Soviet Union knew they had to silence other leadership voices, like those of priest, imams, rabbis, etc….).

In my opinion, the inclusion of "One Nation Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance at a time when black people and other minorities in America were subject to legalized segregation and were denied the right to vote was morally wrong. The United States spent its entire 178-year history (1776–1954) legally oppressing and subjugating black people and other minorities before the Christian slogan was added to the Pledge of Allegiance. In 1954, America was hardly a shining example of freedom, liberty, and justice for minorities residing here. The Civil Rights Act wasn't passed until 1964 and the Voting Rights Act in 1965, and until the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978, Native Americans were not legally permitted to practice their religion in public. The First Amendment's provision guaranteeing religious freedom is a cornerstone of freedom and liberty in this country, but Native Americans were denied this right for 202 years. Due to the atrocious manner in which minorities have been treated in America over the course of its 246-year history, I don't regard it as "One Nation Under God" and a Christian nation. In fact, I think it's very dishonest to call America a Christian nation.

 

[Kenny]

Perfection is despair, perfect love has no agency, because there's no volition to do it, you just love unconditionally, which is no longer freely given

Yes.... perfection is despair and perfect love loves unconditionally...
but...
it is still freely given and freely received.

AWful convenient to give God so much power and then essentially divest it of any real responsibility even though it's supposed to be sovereign and we're, at best, stewards, not anything possessing of equal authority, otherwise we'd be God

Not sure of the logic here.

We children become adults we release all the power over his life and we no longer have the responsibility over them. Equal authority over their lives.

 

[muichimotsu]

Yes.... perfection is despair and perfect love loves unconditionally...
but...
it is still freely given and freely received.



Not sure of the logic here.

We children become adults we release all the power over his life and we no longer have the responsibility over them. Equal authority over their lives.

Not really freely given if it is unconditional, you cannot choose not to, that's literally in the qualification of it being unconditional. It's like if you had a parasite controlling your brain and you could never go against its commands in regards to one particular thing. You lack agency if there is something that is absolute in terms of your actions that admits of no exceptions or variations

No, you don't fully divest yourself from your parents, that's ludicrous and treating them like they don't matter anymore rather than still providing for them even as you have independence yourself. By this logic, it would seem you have no responsibility to your parents even though some form of filial piety is in the bible with the 5th commandment.

The parent metaphor fails, because God is not remotely in the same status as regards being imperfect as we see with parents in society. The parallel doesn't even work because God essentially can do no wrong regardless of what it would do in correcting "disobedient children", so how is it supposed to be loving at all when God cannot help but love and also is such that the concept is like a human trying to understand an ant

 

[Kenny]

Not really freely given if it is unconditional, you cannot choose not to, that's literally in the qualification of it being unconditional. It's like if you had a parasite controlling your brain and you could never go against its commands in regards to one particular thing. You lack agency if there is something that is absolute in terms of your actions that admits of no exceptions or variations

I see the problem here. It is in our definition of unconditional love. I

My definition is that unconditional love is, "I love you no matter what you have done and no matter who you are". It is choosing to give that love that is not "work performance" love.

So our disconnect is in our differences in definition.

No, you don't fully divest yourself from your parents, that's ludicrous and treating them like they don't matter anymore rather than still providing for them even as you have independence yourself. By this logic, it would seem you have no responsibility to your parents even though some form of filial piety is in the bible with the 5th commandment.

that is like saying, "you are now an adult but I will continue to control your life". That isn't adulthood. Any involvement is freely given and freely received.

Responsibility is still a choice. I can choose to not be involved. It might be what is right but that doesn't mean you will.

 

[muichimotsu]

I see the problem here. It is in our definition of unconditional love. I

My definition is that unconditional love is, "I love you no matter what you have done and no matter who you are". It is choosing to give that love that is not "work performance" love.

So our disconnect is in our differences in definition.



that is like saying, "you are now an adult but I will continue to control your life". That isn't adulthood. Any involvement is freely given and freely received.

Responsibility is still a choice. I can choose to not be involved. It might be what is right but that doesn't mean you will.

The problem arguably remains, because if you just love without any nuance, you easily can become a doormat and in God's case, seems like it would just be passive aggressive, "Sure, just do what you want, ignore that I love you regardless,"


God might as well be the ultimate helicopter parent, it's ALWAYS there, you can't get away and people will insist you have some desire to worship it because it knows what's best for you.

Taking advice from anyone can feel like you're making a choice, but social pressures and conditioning can affect it in ways where you will make a self denying choice for the validation from others

 

[Kenny]

The problem arguably remains, because if you just love without any nuance, you easily can become a doormat and in God's case, seems like it would just be passive aggressive, "Sure, just do what you want, ignore that I love you regardless,"

LOL... well... not really. Sounds like a misperception of the message itself.

Obviously, as I noted, we have a difference of definition which would create miscommunication. And again, this is within the context of my signature.

Unconditional love, IMV, is that He choose to love us at our worst and whatever that looked like. It is a marriage proposal.

If we decide to accept that love and love him back, if we meant it, we wouldn't just do what we want. That would be hypocritical and God would know it. The first love is "regardless" which is Him toward us but our response should be "I have your heart as my best interest so I won't just do whatever I want"


Think of it as a marriage. No one is created to be a doormat and there is not supposed to be any passive/aggressive behavior if love is real. We make a lot of mistakes in a marriage but marriage is a commitment even through mistakes. After 48 years of marriage, we love each other regardless of the mistakes we have made but we don't wake up in the morning thinking "I will do whatever I want... regardless". That isn't love.

God might as well be the ultimate helicopter parent, it's ALWAYS there, you can't get away and people will insist you have some desire to worship it because it knows what's best for you.

Look above.

Taking advice from anyone can feel like you're making a choice, but social pressures and conditioning can affect it in ways where you will make a self denying choice for the validation from others

I'm not sure how this applies to what we are discussing.

 

[muichimotsu]

LOL... well... not really. Sounds like a misperception of the message itself.

Obviously, as I noted, we have a difference of definition which would create miscommunication. And again, this is within the context of my signature.

Unconditional love, IMV, is that He choose to love us at our worst and whatever that looked like. It is a marriage proposal.

If we decide to accept that love and love him back, if we meant it, we wouldn't just do what we want. That would be hypocritical and God would know it. The first love is "regardless" which is Him toward us but our response should be "I have your heart as my best interest so I won't just do whatever I want"


Think of it as a marriage. No one is created to be a doormat and there is not supposed to be any passive/aggressive behavior if love is real. We make a lot of mistakes in a marriage but marriage is a commitment even through mistakes. After 48 years of marriage, we love each other regardless of the mistakes we have made but we don't wake up in the morning thinking "I will do whatever I want... regardless". That isn't love.

How can God choose to do that if it is in its nature to love unconditionally? Is God not omnibenevolent and all knowing? God would know all circumstances, possibly even every choice every person could conceivably make and would also be able to arrange things in such a way that we could all make the right choices more than the wrong ones.

Love is meant to be egalitarian, problem is that's not often how marriage in particular is framed from an Abrahamic position: women are meant to be subservient, period, anything outside of that is seen as bad unless you start to recognize women as having agency, which threatens a male-dominated and male-centered worldview that we're often conditioned with in many cultures that can trace back to Abrahamic influences

I'm not sure how this applies to what we are discussing.

Because the idea is that parents are, to a degree, meant to advice their children even as they grow up. Or am I misinterpreting that dynamic?