Where did i suggest civil disobidience in ANY SINGLE POST OF MINE on this topic?


@TV01

I guess that exposing Christiandom for its harlotry stings many people who now keep quoting Rom13:1 as if it an excuse. The bible makes it clear how true Christians would act, how their actions would really identify who they are really following and who they really worship, not just claim to worship. The bloody record of Christiandom (apostate christianity) speaks volumes to whom her master is. Definately not Jesus Christ because Christiandom has little regard for the son of God and the instructions and example he set for those who want to be his true followers

The writer of Romans 13:1 himself kept away from wordly political and and military aims, exactly following in the footsteps of his Lord and other faithful apostles.


And TV01, this debate is useless. I thought we were reasoning with people who said that they are or at least want to follow in the example of Jesus and his true early followers, as well as obey his instruction, but obviously it is not so. They have no regard for the footsteps of who they claim is their master and they want to 'rationalize' out a reason as to why wordly politics should be acceptable to true Christianity

@TV01.

Do you honestly think this debate would make a difference??

People know the example and Instructions of Jesus and his true followers but don't want to follow it. Would anything we say make a difference??

I think the description of Revelation looks like its correct and apt right before our eyes.

Revelation makes it clear that apart from those who follow the footsteps of Jesus and his instructon, the whole world is actually worshiping the wild beast. People today worship the god of nationalism and this dying world's political system and rulership.

People today claim to be Christians (Both Catholics and Protestants alike) but when the god of nationalism calls, they all turn to worship it. By placing the will of the Wild beast ahead of that of what the will of God and his Son is for their true followers, they inadventently worship the wild beast.

The so called Christians would mire themselves in the dying political realm of this world, pick up arms and kill themselves like members of Christiandom have done from the begining of apostate christianity (Catholics and Protestants all claiming to Worship the True God and all claiming to follow in the footsteps of his Son kill each other ie Catholics killing Catholics and Protestants and Protestants killing fellow protestants and Catholics alike)

If the god of nationalism calls these so called Christians again, they would pledge their primary alligiance and service to it time and again.
At the end of the day, they now claim to be true christians, claim to have love among each other, claim that the weapons of their warfare are not carnal and claim to follow in the footsteps of Jesus .

It is striking when you recall that Jesus made it clear that it is works and not claims that would identify those who are threading the part that he left for his true followers. And he also made it clear that the people who are claiming to obey him but in reality do not follow his footsteps are those he would tell he does not know them.



@I am honestly tired of this debate because people even in the light of the example of of the person they claim to be their master and his true followers have no intentions of following it but always try to make it a chose for yourself issue

If this debate continues it would be pointless. Already there has been accusations of incitment to civil disobidience. Next thing they are going to claim is that we are trying to be the only righteous ones.

So what should be the stand of any true christian on this issue? It is clear as daylight. Follow the example of the master and his true folowers!


Did they get invoved in the politics of their day or in the military realm in anyway---------------------NO

Did they pay their taxes-----------------------------Yes

Did they obey the civil laws ----------------------Yes

Did they incite to civil disobidience---------------------------------NO

Did they disobey Ceaser when it conflicted with their Christian calling------------------YES


This worlds dying political and military system soon to be destroyed by God as promised is no place for a true Christian. The true first century followers of Jesus realised that and kept away fom it (yes they were hated by the world in general). True Christians today realise that too today

It is such a shame when we want a scripture to suit us, we begin to dress it our sizes

@sage,

sage:

Did they get invoved in the politics of their day or in the military realm in anyway---------------------NO

Did they pay their taxes-----------------------------Yes

Did they obey the civil laws ----------------------Yes

Did they incite to civil disobidience---------------------------------NO

Did they disobey Ceaser when it conflicted with their Christian calling------------------YES

Did they try to reconstruct history to make it appear that WWII was fought in the name of Christianity?---------------------- NO!!

Did they have to repeat a bogus lie about WWII and keep drivelling at it?---------------- NO!!

Did they call Christianity the Big Harlot?----------------------------NO!!


The issue of Roman 13 was a debate between you and stimulus, where he articulated his point and made it clear that God is in absolute control of human governments; whereas you had stated the contrary that the devil was in control and infact it was the devil who gives human rulership to whomsoever he wishes.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-26936.128.html#msg1038964

Since you don't know the difference in the Word, and you would be happier to reconstruct history to pepper your jaundiced views, the ideas you have argued are simply ludicrous.

Hi Telly B,

Why do your posts sound like one long issue-dodging harangue? No one is arguing for civil disobedience, no one is saying that God is not sovreign (although the enemy has a certain lien and sphere of influence).

Not everything called/labelled Christian is of Christ, including great swathes of what many believe to be traditional/denominational Christianity. After all, Catholics, Protestants, JW, SDA and other strains are often at odds on this very forum.

To deny a religious element in may wars is just naiive. No one said WWII was a war of Christian denominations, rather each side co-opted religion (cynically and politically) as excuse and justification for their actions. You'll be hard pressed today to mention any conflict anywhere on the earth that does not have religious undertones.

Please answer the basic premise - How far should Christians be involved in party politics as a means to acquire and wield state power? (Does this have scriptural warrant? Is it something that can be gleaned by the example of the Lord, His Apostles or the early church? To what end? and how does this benefit the kingdom of God, or the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ?)

And without any of us having to dredge up tons of material showing how political leaders often use the name of God and religion to justify and galvanise nations to war, please outline exactly how professing Christians can go to war against other professing Christians and still claim to be followers of Christ?


@All,

Insight, ideas, doctrines, concepts, knowledge, understanding, wisdom, not personalities. Thanks.

Best
TV

My dear TV01,

TV01:

Why do your posts sound like one long issue-dodging harangue? No one is arguing for civil disobedience, no one is saying that God is not sovreign (although the enemy has a certain lien and sphere of influence).

My posts sound like that to you because you really want it to. The idea that history can be reconstructed to force it into sage's fallacies hasn't become obvious to you even after several appeals to draw your attention to that very fact. That is why I offered you repeatedly: if you feel that WWII was a CHRISTIAN event, please walk me through the facts of histroy that demonstrate this. Failing to do so makes your complaints tiresome and ineffective.

TV01:

Not everything called/labelled Christian is of Christ, including great swathes of what many believe to be traditional/denominational Christianity. After all, Catholics, Protestants, JW, SDA and other strains are often at odds on this very forum.

Is that the issue being discussed here? If you want to even take on that, please open another thread and let's go there and talk about the banes of denominationalism; and then, perhaps, you will come close to realizing that you might be preaching your own denomination as well as others have.

TV01:

To deny a religious element in may wars is just naiive. No one said WWII was a war of Christian denominations, rather each side co-opted religion (cynically and politically) as excuse and justification for their actions. You'll be hard pressed today to mention any conflict anywhere on the earth that does not have religious undertones.

I'm not hard pressed for hard facts on historical antecedents; and if you were so fluent with history, I asked you to please walk me through the hard facts for the case in WWII; which until now you haven't done so. Mr sage's inference to make WWII sound like a religious spark off is rather naive; and to come here bantering to that sick excuse is not really helping your position any further than you'd believe.

TV01:

Please answer the basic premise - How far should Christians be involved in party politics as a means to acquire and wield state power? (Does this have scriptural warrant? Is it something that can be gleaned by the example of the Lord, His Apostles or the early church? To what end? and how does this benefit the kingdom of God, or the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ?)

Good that you asked this; and in time I would answer it. I had hoped that you would offer answers to my repeated requests and then we could take it off from there. The one question I would offer in answer to your question is this: what is politics? If neither you nor sage can clearly define what that is, then applying just every sort of ludicrous statement in the name of a version of truth that does not square with Scripture is an exercise in futility.

TV01:

And without any of us having to dredge up tons of material showing how political leaders often use the name of God and religion to justify and galvanise nations to war, please outline exactly how professing Christians can go to war against other professing Christians and still claim to be followers of Christ?

If you're scared of tons of material, then there's just no use offering even a single line to the point. Your problem here is that the word "politics" has been so narrowed to the idea of military engagements and warfare; so that its basic meaning is often forgotten in your drive to draw the wrong inferences. Is it too much to simply ask that we throw off all pretences and reconstructions so that the fallacies are minimized?

TV01:

Insight, ideas, doctrines, concepts, knowledge, understanding, wisdom, not personalities. Thanks.

That is exactly what I've been calling our attention to; and I hope we all shall have the largeness of heart to reason along such lines.

Cheers.

Telly B,

I understand if you can't or don't want to answer the core question as severally posed. No problem.

Regards

TV01,

Did you read my previous rejoinder? I asked a question to help us contextualize our discussions because I'm not interested in wild statements pretended as "truth". If you're not interested in offering me a few pointers to how or where I got it wrong, no worries.

Enjoy.

@Sage,

It is striking when you recall that Jesus made it clear that it is works and not claims that would identify those who are threading the part that he left for his true followers.

I do not exagerate when I say that your submissions alarm me a lot of times. I fear for you that you are relying on your works for your salvation. The emboldened statement above testifies to that too.

I believe it is on this forum that I mentioned the fact that God recognises only three groups of people on the earth: the Jews, the Nations and the Church! Your reading of the book of revelation is very flawed because you fail to realise that it talks mostly about the end-times and the major characters involved in the end-times are the Jews and the Nations! The Church would have ceased to be on the earth at the time. So how you claim the Church is the harlot in the book of revelation is beyond me, because not only is the church in heaven at the time, it is clear from scriptures that the harlot is a physical city - a Nation other than the Isreal.

I intend to talk more about this issue of Christians killing Christians. My persuasion might shock a lot of people but it is what I see and read the scriptures.

I believe it is on this forum that I mentioned the fact that God recognises only three groups of people on the earth: the Jews, the Nations and the Church! Your reading of the book of revelation is very flawed because you fail to realise that it talks mostly about the end-times and the major characters involved in the end-times are the Jews and the Nations! The Church would have ceased to be on the earth at the time. So how you claim the Church is the harlot in the book of revelation is beyond me, because not only is the church in heaven at the time, it is clear from scriptures that the harlot is a physical city - a Nation other than the Isreal.

I intend to talk more about this issue of Christians killing Christians. My persuasion might shock a lot of people but it is what I see and read the scriptures.

TAYOD,

OH YEAH! OH YEAH! OH YEAH! OH YEAH!! YOU D MAN!!!!!!!!!!! LOL
i always knew i would agree with you based on your posts and where you are based (do not ask lol). LOL i can tell we have some agreeable beliefs that might chock the "traditional world"

hmnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

all i can say is this to this debate .

At least Christiandom is clearly showing that it is not following the instuction and example of Christ and really has no intention of doing so irrespective of her claims.


Now that we have that out of the way, i think you guys shoud get ready to open your bibles to see Why true christians cannot pledge to use their lives to serve, protect, defend and futher wordly goverments, the basic oaths a Politician or a Military officer would take and be forced to act on. It directly contravens the lives and requirments of living as a christian.

True Christians want to follow the example of their master and would want to know why Jesus and his true followers before the inception of apostasy would not be involved in this worlds political affairs, would not  hold political office nor become a soilder nor engage in wordly warfares to protect national sovreignties.

Two of the reasons are obvious ie It goes directly against the requirments of a christian life and secondly they also know God plans to completely destroy  this worlds political system and its military ambitions and that if they were to have God's favour and truely be his servants, they would have no part in these.

But there are more reasons than those stated above

A closer examination of both Daniel and Revelation reavels the identity of the wild beast, the harlot, the relationship between them and all.

@Tayo D, il also try to show you why the Harlot is not a physical city but false religion( a major part of that harlot makes false claims to be Christ followers but is obviously not)


Its not like i expect it to make any difference, but il try and make out time. This debate takes up my break time .

@Telly B

The Catholic churches and Protestant churches alike in different countries were blessing the troops and telling them that God was on their own side and they were doing the will of God to go and kill fellow Catholics and Protestants. Prayers everyday for troopsInfact church participation and its effects in wordly conflicts such as WWII are documented.

One thing is clear from all these though. The god that this people follow is Nationalism and not the True God

@Sage,

True Christians want to follow the example of their master and would want to know why Jesus and his true followers before the inception of apostasy would not be involved in this worlds political affairs, would not  hold political office nor become a soilder nor engage in wordly warfares to protect national sovreignties.
Two of the reasons are obvious ie It goes directly against the requirments of a christian life and secondly they also know God plans to completely destroy  this worlds political system and its military ambitions and that if they were to have God's favour and truely be his servants, they would have no part in these.

Please tell that to the Centurion whom the Bible commended as being a just man who fears God (Acts 10).
I guess Jesus Christ doesn't think the way you do because he clearly stated that not one person understood the issue of faith than the Centurion in Matthew 8. It is interesting that Jesus never asked him to quit being a soldier before he could walk in faith and receive the concomitant blessing. You are preaching another gospel Sage!!!

@sage,

Please don't try to dress up your flawed assumptions. I appreciate Telly B's simple entry to this thread: you cannot reconstruct the HISTORICAL FACTS of WWII to make it read as if it is a war fought in the name of Christianity. Period.

Hey you all. I think this topic is worth it. But I hope to read the whole comments of each  person later on. But shortly, I want to recognize the coherence of TV01, u seem to me to be a person on the line of truth. Be encouraged, brother, even if the grain go against you. They went against Paul,e.t.c. too. Again, I dont know details, but in one word, tithing isn't only not meant to be mandatory in Christianity, Tithing isn't a Christian doctrine. And anyone who leans on this law(the law of tithing which is of the Old Covenant) or any other Law of Moses as a way to be in terms with God is under a curse (Read Galatians 3 or 5, thereabout). For u thus are saying the Blood of Christ which was shed isnt enough-thus u have to take from the Old Covenant to be righteous. Our people, watch it. Regardless of their "big" names, not all who call themselves "men of God" are men of God. By their fruits, know them. Test what is said and done by these folks based on the Scriptures (New Covenant). In the first place, anyone who owns or founded by themselves a church in the name of Christianity is a deciever. Note that Peter, nor Paul, nor any other faithful believer founded or owned a church, they only helped Christ in establishing His church(not their own churches) all around the world where they propagated His gospel too. They never named or coined name for  any churches. Test the spirits of these people u acclaim so much.

For the end is near.
May God the Father and the Lord Jesus give us all more and more grace, mercy and peace. Amen
Our Lord, come, We pray. Do not delay

Hi @Dammey,

Dammey:

In the first place, anyone who owns or founded by themselves a church in the name of Christianity is a deciever. Note that Peter, nor Paul, nor any other faithful believer founded or owned a church,

Do you attend a church? Who founded that church you attend?

bari_kade:

Hi @Dammey,

Do you attend a church?

When one understands that "church" is not something one attends, but something that one is a part of or belongs too, "attendance" (or not) ceases to be the question.

bari_kade:

Who founded that church you attend?

He said "I will build my Church". His Apostle said "No other foundation".  

Quite a few of the planets in our solar system have moons. All these moons have given names. As we all know, the Earth also has a moon - just the one - but it has no name. Why? because there is just the one, no one ever named it*. I see Demmey' point.


God bless
TV

_{*Please, no smart-alec rejoinders about the various names, such as Luna,  ascribed to the Earths Moon at different times .}

@Tayo D

More clutching of straws to support Christiandoms harlotry huh.

Take a look at the quotes by historians on the top page of the last page.

No Soilder after becoming a Christian continued as a soilder.

For the Centurion to agree to become baptised and a christian ment he had to have started to fear the True God. It would become clear to him that he has entred a spiritual convenant which was and still is incompactible with the life of a true Christian, he would have to make changes to his life style in order

Having a desire to do the will of God is one thing, conforming ones life to meet the requirments of living as a true Christian is another thing.
An example of this is the rich young ruler who approached Jesus. Jesus saw that he had a desire to do the will of God, but was that enough. No coz he failed to accept the fact that  change in his lifestyle was something he had to do.

Paul in his letter to the Romans (i think) and Jesus in the book of Mark made it clear that there are many people that have a burning desire to do the will of the True God but are not doing it the right way and that makes their form of worship in vain. (Il come and state the exact scriptures a lil later). I seem to be out of time and can only come to nairaland during break time but il try.

Paul in his letter to Timothy showed him that a true slave of God would not be engaged in carnal fights and at another occasion, he makes it clear that Christians are not part of carnal warfares
The truth of the matter is that if that Centurion, or anyother person in fact wanted to become part of the spiritual convenant, they would have to make changes to their lives.

@TV01,

TV01:

When one understands that "church" is not something one attends, but something that one is a part of or belongs too, "attendance" (or not) ceases to be the question.

I know why I asked him that question. And yes, the semantics aside, people "go to church" in the sense that they "go to their own company" -- Act 4:23. Also, "they assembled themselves with the church" -- Acts 11:26. I believe that when you understand issues like this, you would adjust your persuasions accordingly. One cannot sit in isolation and call himself or herself "church".

So, however he chooses to read it, go to, assemble, attend meetings, gather together, I'm sure he would oblige me an answer.

TV01:

He said "I will build my Church". His Apostle said "No other foundation".

Dammey made a categorical statement; and when he responds I'll bring these issues to him.

TV01:

Quite a few of the planets in our solar system have moons. All these moons have given names. As we all know, the Earth also has a moon - just the one - but it has no name. Why? because there is just the one, no one ever named it*. I see Demmey' point.

He simply has no point by refrence to the line of his quote in my enquiry. People easily see other believers as being deceived; and if he had thought for a moment that his own quite corner was safe from his heat, I'm just waiting with a gentle hose!  

TV01:

*Please, no smart-alec rejoinders about the various names, such as Luna,  ascribed to the Earths Moon at different times .

Doesn't make a case against its being distinct from other moons. See the following:

           http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=289

christian or no christian ,. the game will stil remain the same, remember that u can change or hate the player , but u just can change the game cos u are "christian", what it do , u digg?

TayoD:

I believe it is on this forum that I mentioned the fact that God recognises only three groups of people on the earth: the Jews, the Nations and the Church! Your reading of the book of revelation is very flawed because you fail to realise that it talks mostly about the end-times and the major characters involved in the end-times are the Jews and the Nations! The Church would have ceased to be on the earth at the time. So how you claim the Church is the harlot in the book of revelation is beyond me, because not only is the church in heaven at the time, it is clear from scriptures that the harlot is a physical city - a Nation other than the Isreal.

Israel was called a harlot several times for it's bad behavior.

In this sense, harlot has always referred to all such bad behavior that God's own people do.

Our current church is no exception. It's harlotry's are being copied all over the world.

@TV01

I want you to read this. I read the paper yesterday and i wento to the site

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/07/faith-shouldnt-.html#more


Faith shouldn't be red, white and blue
Patriotism and religion each hold a prominent place in the American story. That’s as it should be. To wed the two, however, is a disservice to patriots and to the faithful.
By Tom Krattenmaker

The Fourth of July is a time for Americans to honor our country and, for the many religious people among us, to honor God. But as the fireworks explode on Independence Day, let's resist an all-too-common tendency these days to drape the American flag around the Christian cross. Let's remember that religion is not patriotism, that patriotism is not religion — and that when we combine them both with a glorification of American military might, something has gone disturbingly askew.

(Illustration by Sam Ward)

Sadly, the distinction between faith and martial-tinged patriotism seems lost on some of our most fervent advocates for the military and religion. Rewind to Memorial Day weekend, when a Christian organization called Task Force Patriot USA and other groups staged a three-day salute to the troops at Stone Mountain Park in Georgia. Drawing about 100,000 people, the celebration featured Christian worship services and Bible giveaways, speeches by retired military personnel and Air Force jet flybys.

Not to single out Christianity. After all, a cross-themed celebration of the military is harmless next to jihadists who kill in the name of religion. And U.S. troops certainly deserve appreciation. Yet one has to ask: Do Christian worship and Bibles really belong with demonstrations of U.S. military might?

For one evangelical leader here in Oregon, the conflation of patriotism and Christianity reached the point where he took action that's considered anathema in many conservative church communities: He publicly spoke out against what was happening at his church.

Bob Hyatt, now pastor of the upstart Evergreen Community in the Portland area, worked on the staff of a local megachurch in the fevered period immediately after the 9/11 attacks. Despite being raised and educated in a strict Christian conservative environment in which the United States was regarded as God's favored nation, Hyatt was aghast to find the sanctuary frequently decked out in red-white-and-blue bunting with a pair of 50-foot American flags. In the Sunday service nearest the Fourth of July, congregants recited the Pledge of Allegiance and sang patriotic songs. As the pattern continued through the early months of the Iraq war, Hyatt could hold his tongue no longer. At a pray-for-our-troops rally at the megachurch, he took a turn at the microphone and cited the teachings of Jesus in making the unpopular suggestion that the congregants also pray for Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi people. He went on to write an Internet article titled, "Profoundly Disturbed on the Fourth of July," which was not well-received at the church and led to his leaving its staff.

'We were worshiping America'

Reflecting on those patriotic services, Hyatt wrote: "We had taken a time that belonged to the worship of God and turned it toward the appreciation of a country, a political system, a flag. We said that we were worshiping God through the singing of those patriotic songs, the saying of the Pledge of Allegiance and the rest, but in fact we were worshiping America."

There is considerable practical wisdom in the old saying about atheists in foxholes. A complete separation of faith and patriotism in a time of war is as unlikely as expecting religious soldiers not to turn to God in the face of enemy fire, and as unreasonable as expecting Christian believers to pray equally for al-Qaeda fighters and U.S. troops. Right or wrong, we have a long tradition of political and military leaders invoking God in non-neutral ways during times of war.

During the crucial D-Day invasion, President Franklin Roosevelt took to the airwaves with an appeal to "Almighty God" to "lead (our men) straight and true; give strength to their arms, stoutness to their hearts, steadfastness in their faith."

Would those words arouse the ire of Americans today? Of some, probably. My own response to Roosevelt's religious invocation is colored by indelible memories of my visit to the World War II cemetery in Normandy. I still have vivid mental pictures of the graves of the American soldiers, of the crosses laid out in row after solemn row. Interspersed throughout the cemetery were many Stars of David, rising over the graves of the fallen Jewish soldiers whose role in the fight has special poignancy.

No doubt, faith has long played a role in the American military, but it has been an inclusive faith, one respecting a diversity of denominations and religions, with chaplains of different stripes available to assist soldiers on their own religious terms. Contrast that with what's been happening in the military in recent years, where sometimes-coercive Christian evangelizing has triggered lawsuits and lent a crusader overtone to the fight against terrorism. Contrast that inclusive tradition with rhetoric that portrays Jesus as America's "commander in chief" and efforts by a group called Christian Embassy to proselytize to our diplomatic corps and military leadership. Is militaristic Christian nationalism really where we want to take this country and our dominant religion?

Illinois Sen. Barack Obama recently spoke of the danger to our critical thinking ability when we become too convinced of America's righteousness and God's allegiance with the United States. While acknowledging the evil of the 9/11 attacks, Obama sounded this note of caution: "The danger of using good vs. evil in the context of war is it may lead us to be not as critical as we should be about our own actions."

Obama went on to cite the prisoner abuse scandals at Abu Ghraib and "unjust" detentions at Guantanamo as examples of the abuses of which we are capable when we become too convinced of our inherent God-sanctioned goodness.

'The light is the light of Christ'

The progressive evangelical leader Jim Wallis has sounded similar warnings to Christians who might go too far in mixing their patriotism and faith. Wallis has repeatedly chided President Bush for voicing a theology that speaks of America as "the hope of all mankind the light (that) shines in the darkness."

Wallis acknowledges the biblical foundation of such language, but he adds, it is important to note that, "In the gospel, the light shining in the darkness is the Word of God, and the light is the light of Christ. It's not about America and its values."

God and country — the two live side-by-side in the hearts of many tradition-minded Americans. Yet faith and patriotism are different ideals that at times require vastly different allegiances. Given the reality of religious pluralism in America, the government cannot rightly become the instrument of any one form of belief. Conversely, our country will not always do right — no nation can — and only by maintaining its distinct identity can religion retain its ability to call people to conscience.

May patriots honor the flag on the Fourth of July. And may religious people revel in the beauty of their faiths. But let's remember that being Christian is not a requirement of patriotism. And that patriotism is most assuredly not a requirement of being religious. Let's honor the flag and faith — by keeping a reverent measure of distance between the two.

Tom Krattenmaker, who lives in Portland, Ore., specializes in religion in public life and is a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors.

Talk about irony

These religious leaders who call themselves "Christians" realise that

Flag salute/worship, Pledges/oath of alligience, anthems, the spirit of patriotism and Nationalism and Promising to serve the nation with all your life constitues worship of the nations.

Irronically they dont have the moral authority to say that the principles by which wordly Kingdoms operate and that of Christianity is such that you cannot Serve the Nation and Serve the True God at the same time.

Rather they try (But ultimately fail) to rationalise how one can worship the nation and God at the same time (From a Christian standpoint)


I guess that goes to confirm Revelation


The worlds masses really worship the wild beast primariy.

Some just claim to also worship the true God but we know that God does not accept worship of him and the wild beast at the same time

Talk about irony

These religious leaders who call themselves "Christians" realise that

Flag salute/worship, Pledges/oath of alligience, anthems, the spirit of patriotism and Nationalism and Promising to serve the nation with all your life constitues worship of the nations.

Irronically they dont have the moral authority to say that the principles by which wordly Kingdoms operate and that of Christianity is such that you cannot Serve the Nation and Serve the True God at the same time.

Rather they try (But ultimately fail) to rationalise how one can worship the nation and God at the same time (From a Christian standpoint)


I guess that goes to confirm Revelation


The worlds masses really worship the wild beast primariy.

Some just claim to also worship the true God but we know that God does not accept worship of him and the wild beast at the same time

sage:

@TV01

I want you to read this. I read the paper yesterday and i wento to the site

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/07/faith-shouldnt-.html#more

Hi Sage,

Thanks for this. I finally had a moment to read it thoroughly.

I agree. If anything, I think it does not go far enough, and isn't with a strictly Christian focus. My views and position on Christians & politics as a means of gloryfying God, promulgating the gospel or ushering in His kingdom remain unchanged.

Render unto Ceasar wha is his and Unto God all the Glory.

God bless
TV

_{ps: nobody has been able to show scripturally, historicaly or practically how this glorifies God.}