On the Christian anti-patriot movement & the Fluidity of Religious Belief

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by ninepointfive

 

No, it's not. I give my opinions - as we are encouraged to do when making new threads.
If you have no opinions, why bother posting at all?

It's all about denying ignorance. Move along then, if you don't like it. I don't need your "suggestions" or "critique", thanks.

just suggesting something which will help with discussion of the topic at hand, rather than the ego of the particular person writing it.

Originally posted by IsidoreOfSeville
reply to post by votan

 

I think perhaps she's mentioning the John Hagee types that think we should go to war to defend Israel. Some sort of diving imperative. Those types.

yeah and those beliefs are more personal beliefs than religious beliefs.

reply to post by bluesman1955

Ive asked 10 people what the 4th of july is about.
Guess what?
Nobody has a clue.
No wonder we are screwed.

Are you kidding? What 10 people, a bunch of preschoolers??? Or foreigners?
I'm not being flippant, I really want to know who you asked!! That seems impossible!!

reply to post by Serdgiam

I think that changing the primary school years (grades 1~5) should be focused on exploration based in the scientific method. We give them a basis to explore the world, but then we just tell them to explore and bring their "findings" back to the class for peer review at certain time periods. I think this would not only be a better foundation for further learning, but would make a much, much more engaging system for both teachers and students. There is a lot more to the idea, but thats the basics.

Sounds like a plan! They'd need to know math and reading, though....
but yes, I think kids should be allowed to explore, ask questions, get answers (including, if appropriate, "we don't know") and listened to. Kids are goldmines of original ideas.

reply to post by votan


Yes, as someone else already said, the John Hagee types. The "Dominionists" as well. New Apostolic Reformation Watch can fill you in on them. They're a very scary bunch.

reply to post by charles1952

Pull out of the UN and set up a new organization. The members would be required to have freedom of the press and speech, fair and effective means for changing governments without violence, and throw in a couple of more freedoms. If you're a tyrant, you don't get in.

This sounds like a good idea,

Wait. Isn't that what the UN is supposed to be? Charles....are you messing with my head again?? I'm having trouble focusing this morning.

This group then takes as a goal, the spreading of these freedoms where they do not exist, and the protection of them where they do.

That IS what the UN is supposed to do. I don't get your point......
but if you leave out "VIOLENCE" or the arming of those who want to become violent, it would be much better. Obviously the UN is not averse to war.....so when you mentioned pulling out, I thought - good. But I suspect you're just pointing out that the UN is already "trying to do that."

"Spreading freedom" is the objective, "WITHOUT VIOLENCE" is the preferred means. Some peoples, in some nations, however, might not want freedom for other people in their nation - or the world - and so, we are buggered.

Maybe I'm missing your point, you sly dog.

reply to post by AnonymousMoose

Hi,
I'm a Zionist Christian Evangelical Potential Terrorist Right-Wing Exremist.....and as a ZCEPTRWE I don't like war and don't want any more wars

Cute.
How about you start an oversight committee for the rest of the ZCEPTRWEs, or run for "Top Zceptrwe Dog"?
That would be great. If it doesn't work, though, get new friends.

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

Where is the link for the second claim? Assuming you can support this, what does it have to do with a group of Mennonites?

As for the "fluidity of religious belief", that's not complicated. If a person does, in fact, change what they state they believe, it isn't wrong for those that still believe to point this out.

Which second claim?

The Mennonites were the people mentioned in the OP. I was comparing/contrasting the two styles of "Christianity" is all. For more info on the NAR, see the link I provided to votan.

Fluidity in religious belief is, I think, a normal part of adult development, and we do continue to grow and learn and change after we turn 25 - or 35 - or 45 - but I'm sure you're aware of that, LGE. What worked when we were younger doesn't always "stick the landing" as we mature.

reply to post by wildtimes

Dear wildtimes,

"Sly dog." I kind of like that, it sounds just a bit disreputable. I'll have to practice my "Disreputable Strut."

But leaving that aside for a while, it seems that we have some real work to do. I'm discussing preserving and expanding freedom, and you think that's what the UN does or is supposed to do.

Their main emphasis, from their founding documents, is ensuring peace and stability. Yes, equal rights are mentioned as their secondary goal, but their track record there is horrendous.

As we both treasure the idea of increased rights and freedoms throughout the world, may I suggest a web site to you? Here's a link to their most recent annual report:
www.freedomhouse.org...
You can click to their home page, or whatever else interests you from there.

They rank countries as "Free," "Partly Free," and "Not Free" based on a seven-point scale with 1 as most free, and 7 is least free. Some of the statements in the report include these:

While the number of countries ranked as Free in 2012 was 90, a gain of 3 over the previous year, 27 countries showed significant declines, compared with 16 that showed notable gains. This is the seventh consecutive year that Freedom in the World has shown more declines than gains worldwide. Furthermore, the report data reflected a stepped-up campaign of persecution by dictators that specifically targeted civil society organizations and independent media.

Worst of the Worst: Of the 47 countries designated as Not Free, nine have been given the survey's lowest possible rating of 7 for both political rights and civil liberties: Eritrea, Equatorial Guinea, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. Two territories, Tibet and Western Sahara, were also ranked among the worst of the worst.

An additional 5 countries and 1 territory received scores that were slightly above those of the worst-ranked countries, with ratings of 6,7 or 7,6 for political rights and civil liberties: Belarus, Chad, China, Cuba, Laos, and South Ossetia.

The number of countries designated by Freedom in the World as Free in 2012 stood at 90, representing 46 percent of the world’s 195 polities and 3,046,158,000 people—43 percent of the global population.

Freedom House grades Political Rights and Civil Liberties on a seven point scale. There are 47 countries in the world with top grades in both. That would be the initial membership in my "League of Free Nations." The way it is now, Russia and China are both "Not Free," and they both have veto powers in the UN Security Council.

So, no, I'm not messing with you. Just trying to think of a way to push freedom. Yes, preferably non-violently.

I was really struck by their statement that this is the seventh consecutive year that Freedom in the World has shown more declines than gains. I'm worried about it, and I'd like to see a serious effort from somebody to stop the trend.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

 

Where is the link for the second claim? Assuming you can support this, what does it have to do with a group of Mennonites?

As for the "fluidity of religious belief", that's not complicated. If a person does, in fact, change what they state they believe, it isn't wrong for those that still believe to point this out.

Which second claim?

The Mennonites were the people mentioned in the OP. I was comparing/contrasting the two styles of "Christianity" is all. For more info on the NAR, see the link I provided to votan.

Fluidity in religious belief is, I think, a normal part of adult development, and we do continue to grow and learn and change after we turn 25 - or 35 - or 45 - but I'm sure you're aware of that, LGE. What worked when we were younger doesn't always "stick the landing" as we mature.

This second claim -

Originally posted by wildtimes
Nowadays there are Zionist Christian Evangelicals screeching for WAR - HOPING for the Apocalypse and destruction of OTHER PEOPLE and their countries. This is APPALLING.

I don't know of any Christians "screaming for war.". I know many that believe the End Time events we can read about in the Bible are close, and some of those events do include some pretty horrific things, but that isn't people "screaming for war". Would you mind offering your definition of "Zionist Christians", for clarity? I have heard this used many ways, and it's not possible to know how to respond without understanding your own meaning.

As for the fluidity, I agreed that people change. However, you state that it's somehow wrong for those that still believe to state that the person who's left said belief did so. As a Christian, I can tell you that if a person actually IS Christian, this means they accepted Jesus as Savior. If they leave the faith, church, etc., then it's a case of them practicing without actually believing. This is what people state, and it's accurate. It's the choice of each person, and such a statement is simply an observation.

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

Here's a site I found just by typing into google: "Christians who want war"
Millions of Evangelical Christians Want to Start WWIII to Speed the “Second Coming” …

Yes, the result page is from about 18 months ago....
but
they DO exist. one of the links there is this one: Pastor Hagee's Armageddon Politics

Have a look, and let me know what you think.

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

 

Here's a site I found just by typing into google: "Christians who want war"
Millions of Evangelical Christians Want to Start WWIII to Speed the “Second Coming” …

Yes, the result page is from about 18 months ago....
but
they DO exist. one of the links there is this one: Pastor Hagee's Armageddon Politics

Have a look, and let me know what you think.

edit on 11-7-2013 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)

All I see there is claims from others, not any actual statements from those named, regarding what people claim they say or support. I did a search for the site of Christians United for Israel, and didn't see anything there calling for war. Supporting the right of Israel to defend their nation isn't a call to war. By all means, though, if you have a link from them supporting this claim, please offer it, and I will take a look. I am not familiar with that organization.

A call for action against Iran is something that can be heard from many quarters, because of the actions of their government. I see no indication that this is something from any Christian group.

I also don't see proof there of such statements from Bush or Blair. If either said such things, there should be a link for the video someplace.

A statement that the Bible talks about a war isn't the same as calling for a war. A lot of people watch for signs mentioned in the Bible, and discuss which ones they think have happened, and what has to happen before the end, but again, that isn't the same as calling for war.

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes



This video will give you an idea...Pastor Hagee speaks at 5:14 to the whole crowd - calling for "a pre-emptive strike against Iran" but I REALLY encourage you to watch the whole thing....to get an idea of how he, and his followers, are pushing for war against Iran. The video is a documentary type piece - a young Jewish journalist who is at the conference is asking questions. He gets thrown out.

They actually believe that the anti-Christ is going to be a "man of peace, who's been standing for peace for a long time."

"If we don't take on Iran...the Muslims are going to follow us here and take over."



Here's another 30-second clip of Hagee saying the same thing:

reply to post by wildtimes


Im speechless....

that video deserves its own thread... it'll be a war!!

reply to post by Akragon


Hey, Akra, be my guest - have at it, make its own thread.
Scary stuff...

If everyone was a Mennonite in the USA we would still be ruled by England or at the very least speaking German and saluting the Nazi flag. The Mennonites only enjoy their religious freedoms because someone died to give them to them.

reply to post by guitarplayer

If everyone was a Mennonite in the USA we would still be ruled by England or at the very least speaking German and saluting the Nazi flag. The Mennonites only enjoy their religious freedoms because someone died to give them to them.

Hmmm. It seems to me that Germany and England BOTH are tolerant of all religions. I believe that could have happened WITHOUT bloodshed.

If everyone in the WORLD was a pacifist, on the other hand, we'd ALL have freedom to believe whatever we wanted.
Or rather, to be able to 'represent' their beliefs safely. It's not impossible for groups of people to cooperate, to be pulled together by a common goal - rather than PUSHED together by a common threat or enemy.

reply to post by wildtimes


Wow.......it's a bit disappointing that you believe the clearly biased claims of a guy who went to a conference to stir up trouble, and made false claims. The ONLY thing accurate is that Hagee did speak of a preemptive strike against Iran. That's ALL. So what? Considering that a power-mad hostage-taking terrorist is running that country, This is a valid consideration, that people in leadership positions discuss. Pretending that this is "Evangelicals trying to start WWIII" isn't accurate.

link 1

link 2

No one at that conference stated that they wanted to start a war to bring about the End Times. People simply talked about the Biblical prophecies concerning those times, and some stated they looked forward to those days. Well, DUH? being called into the presence of God, before the rest of the world falls under the temporary rule of the Antichrist, is a GOOD thing for those people. That is NOT trying to start a war. Claiming it is is a gross misrepresentation of anything said, just as that smarmy reporter was attempting, ignoring the words of his own Holy Book.

I don't attend a mega church, and some of those do have various issues, which are fodder for another thread, but trying to twist what was actually said and claim Christians are trying to start wars is disingenuous.

So far, nothing you have posted supports the title of the thread.

reply to post by wildtimes


My point of the post was that you only have the freedom to voice your opinion and to believe as you wish in America because someone died to give you that freedom and to maintain that freedom. If during WW2 had all of America had been pacifist do you think that German or Japan would have just left us alone? And no I do not condone all the policing that America is doing throughout the world today.

reply to post by guitarplayer

My point of the post was that you only have the freedom to voice your opinion and to believe as you wish in America because someone died to give you that freedom and to maintain that freedom.

Yes, of course I knew what you were talking about. Yes, many people have died in battles fought for freedom.

I wasn't talking about ONLY Americans being pacifists. I meant everyone EVERYWHERE. It's an idealistic dream - but somehow I keep thinking that's what we're "supposed to be" striving for.