Is there Really Peace Through Religion?

[Natural Citizen]

What was intended is not what is.

but what is, was foreseen.

Mm hm. This is true. Which gives credence to the the idea that only worthy, determined, men will be free men.

[hells_unicorn]

Yeah, you're probably right about that.

But, no, I didn't read your link. I wasn't interested in it. I wanted to hear your thought on it. Mainly because you tend to forward an anti-America vibe in many of your postings. You seem to hold a more eastern worldview. And that's okay. But I've been considering the latter part of your thought here anyway. I likely agree with that. And that's likely where I'm at personally.

It appears that way because I'm more interested in reading scripture through the historical testimony of the church (this is exactly what Luther, Calvin, Knox and the other Magistrate Reformers did in their dissent against Rome). However, what I've actually articulated is closer to the original western faith as espoused by the early Latin theologians, particularly Ambrose and Augustine. There is a great deal of parallel in approach to theology between the early Latin figures and many of the important early Eastern patriarchs, particularly the Cappadocian fathers, though I think TER would contest just how close they are based on post-schism objections to western theology, particularly the Filioque addition to the Nicene Creed.

Anyhow, the link I gave is a testimony by early 19th century American Presbyters, most of them of Scottish and Irish ancestry, not eastern. The objection that they have to America is not to the system of government, but to the rejection of Christ's lordship over nations. It is very clearly stated in the papers of dissent that I linked that the Covenanter party's objections are not grounded in monarchism, but in the secularist flavor of the Constitution itself. I'm not anti-American, but I am anti-Constitution as it was drafted.

[PierzStyx]

James 1:27 New American Standard Bible (NASB)


Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.

An understanding of this passage would probably greatly enhance the peace in this world if even a plurality of Christians actually understood it and complied. Christianity was never supposed to be "a religion," but a faith, the 'religious' aspects of which are (supposed to be) simply doing good to others less fortunate. If people understood what a 'religion' was actually supposed to be, it would indeed greatly enhance the peace of this world. Problem is most people seem to think 'religion' boils down to whose god can beat up someone else's god. There is nothing peaceful about that, even under the rare circumstance when it becomes necessary.

Faith without works is dead. The religion of Jesus Christ, truly lived, is the most revolutionary belief system ever brought amongst man. It cares the cures for war, poverty, violence, oppression, tyranny, and the other ills of humanity. The problem is that so few Christians ever to try to live like Christ. They mouth on and on about their beliefs but they never do the works of Christ.

It reminds me of Christ's denunciation of the Pharisees, telling them that if they were the true children of Abraham then they would do the works of Abraham. Likewise, so many Christians talk and talk about being the children of Christ or being His followers. If they truly were then they would be doing His works and living His way. Not saluting idol flags, not singing war praises to worldly powers, not celebrating the arm of the flesh. To be a Christian is to be a Revolutionary.

[PierzStyx]

There is also this:

Matthew 10:34-36 “Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. “For I came to SET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW; and A MAN’S ENEMIES WILL BE THE MEMBERS OF HIS HOUSEHOLD. [NASB]

Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid. -John 14:27

[Christian Liberty]

To put it simply:

1. The Government is constituted on the principle that there is no God.
2. The Government is constituted on the principle that there is no revealed will of God for the government of nations.
3. It is denied by the Governing Society that Jesus Christ is the Governor of this nation.

Read the Constitution, there is no mention of Christ's Lordship over this country. It was the first country in the history of western civilization to constitute itself without an official declaration of national religion. This alone is a deal-breaker if one believes the bible, and specifically the Pauline Epistles, are the Word of God.

A more detailed description of the Covenanter objection to the U.S. Constitution and why Covenanters do not vote can be found at the following link:

http://wendymcelroy.com/news.php?extend.2137.5

Just curious, where in the Pauline Epistles? Do you have Romans 13 in mind or something else?

[heavenlyboy34]

Natural Law is not a confession of the existence of "God" (note the upper case G), there is no mention whatsoever of the revealed will of God in the U.S. Constitution (The Declaration of Independence and the extraneous writings of the "Founders" and their varying strains of heterodoxy are not relevant to any court of law, and I don't see any biblical passages cited in those passages noted, only vague references to "a creator" that could be equally chalked up to Aristotle's Universal Consciousness), and Jesus Christ's name is not mentioned anywhere in the U.S. Constitution, let alone his lordship.

You misunderstood the 3 objections that were laid out, and I'm assuming that you either didn't read or only scanned over the writing linked which further unpacked what I had stated. Natural Law is not a sufficient means for constituting a nation in a fallen world, if anything else, it's a declaration of paganism, and the final point about America being a home for "all religions" is steeped in Masonic heathenism. Being a haven for "all religions" means putting false religion on equal footing with true religion in the eyes of the law. This is the antithesis of a government that holds God and Christ as the source of their authority.

My accusation of the Founders rests not only in them having skeptic tendencies, but also them wholesale abandoning the Christian principle of governance, namely as noted in Romans 13 that the magistrate is "ordained by God". One of the few who saw what was coming was Patrick Henry, who did indeed smell a rat, and it has now manifested itself as the modern rehash of Ancient Roman imperialism, complete with a pantheon of religions participating in its perpetuation.

Americanism is a hard nut to crack once it has taken hold, it took me most of my life to give up that ghost. I don't fault you for cleaving to it, but at some point in your life if you are interested in following through on the Christian religion, you're going to have to ask yourself some hard questions about what has been gained by allowing former colonies to be saturated by false religion. How can we expect honest government if we can't even be honest with ourselves about what kind of government we have?

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to hells_unicorn again.

God bless ya, brother! ~hugs~

[pcosmar]

Mm hm. This is true. Which gives credence to the the idea that only worthy, determined, men will be free men.

mMm,
Not worthy.

and only those that know that first.

[LibertyExtremist]

I'm very skeptical about the majority of organized religious groups being compatible with liberty. I grew up in the Jehovah's Witness cult and later spent time in the Episcopal Church and came away mortified by my experiences with organized religion and Christianity. Organized religions, for the most part, seem in lock-step with big government and authoritarianism. If people want to organize themselves voluntarily into a spiritual/religious group then that is fine, but when they start coercing people who do not subscribe to their beliefs, then that is a huge problem. IMO, it is the nature of some religions to operate in an authoritarian and coercive way.

Personally, I've found spiritual peace in my own personal pagan spirituality. It is something that is personal/private to me and something that doesn't require any sort of evangelism or coercion of any kind. At the end of the day, the Abrahamic religions are just not compatible with my value system. That being said, the only problems I have are when religious groups seek to force their values onto my own.