Habakkuk's End Time Word

[Fenris]

The U.S., I agree, is guilty of immorality and colonialist kinds of activities

As compared to who? Where are these countries of morality that's white as the driven snow? We live in the real world where sometimes even a good country is confronted with only bad choices. Given that backdrop, the United States is one of the most moral countries that has ever existed in all of human history.

[Fenris]

Homosexuality, probably the greatest sin in the bible, it's main proponent is the United States, who proposes that all other countries who do not agree with and promote homosexuality are abusing human rights and abusing mankind.

The United States does not "promote" homosexuality any more than God does. The government simply allows people to make that choice, just as God does. Or does God giving us free will mean that He "promotes" behavior forbidden in the bible?

[Athanasius]

Oh man, Fenris, look, I nailed it.

Sweet! I think this solidifies your bona fides as a prophet!

Ah geez if only I wasn't disqualified from such an office!

[RandyPNW]

The U.S., I agree, is guilty of immorality and colonialist kinds of activities

As compared to who? Where are these countries of morality that's white as the driven snow? We live in the real world where sometimes even a good country is confronted with only bad choices. Given that backdrop, the United States is one of the most moral countries that has ever existed in all of human history.

I'm theocratic at heart because I believe the Bible itself is theocratic. God does allow human choice, and God expects us to face political realities. But countries with excessive tolerance, giving freedom of religion and freedom of moral license, are held responsible by God, whether they are ignorant of His laws or not. Just my beliefs, friend.

When God said, "Have no other gods," He did not mean, "your country is good if you give people free religious choices." Yes, God allows people free choice, but then judges them for making the wrong choice or even for allowing the wrong free choices.

I'll give you an example. I tell you that you are free to indulge in any particular activity you want in your back yard, whether recreational or business, as long as it doesn't disturb me, your neighbor. I'm giving you freedom of choice, but not unlimited freedom of choice.

When governments tell people they can exercise their religious freedoms, it doesn't mean they can exercise any religious freedom. Determining the right religion is the domain of God Himself, and also the responsibility of those who know Him. Those who don't know Him obviously aren't going to require the right religion, but can still determine a generally acceptable morality even in their ignorance.

The US began with several religious viewpoints, and the founding fathers began as a compromise, between Christians of several kinds and Deists, as well as perhaps  even Jews and Muslims. Deists would tolerate Jews and Muslims, and Christians would tolerate Jews and Muslims without enabling them to try to displace a Christian State.

But gradually, tolerance for a mixed State has prevailed, as even the original documents reveal. The US was a mixed religious State from the beginning, and the result has been an eroded morality. Free choice, but a wrong religious choice. Just my view, and you're certainly entitled to yours.

I would inform you, however, that even though I believe in a singular Christian system, I do not believe in persecuting those of other religions. Again, they have freedom of conscience--just not freedom to promote anarchy, civil disobedience, and schism in our society. Obviously, I have a different view of "freedom of religion" and "freedom of speech" than is stated in our Bill of Rights. I hope this helps you understand my position?

[RandyPNW]

Daniel 9:v.24KJV: - GOD revealed to Daniel that 70 weeks (490 years) was determined upon His people, and upon the holy city for finishing :
(1) the transgression -
(2) to make an end of sins,
(3) to make reconciliation for iniquity,
(4) to bring in everlasting righteousness,
(5) to seal up the vision and prophecy,
(6) to anoint the most Holy.

As I've already said (sigh), this could be a warning instead of a prophecy. From the year of Daniel's vision, they have 490 years to set things right. By 104 BC, Alexander Yannai will ascend the throne and things completely fall apart; the Romans end up occupying Judea, leading to the Jewish revolt, the destruction of the temple and a 2,000 year Jewish diaspora. This isn't speculation, it's historical fact.

That position would also be consistent with the historical system of interpretation, which is what I believe. I'm neither a Preterist nor a Partial Preterist. And yet I'm told I am, simply because I believe this particular prophecy was fulfilled in history, namely the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, which Jesus predicted would take place in his generation.

[Fenris]

I'm theocratic at heart because I believe the Bible itself is theocratic.

The bible is theocratic- but only for the Jews. It gives a complete set of civil and criminal laws to build that society on. The NT is specifically, textually not theocratic. Render unto Caeser. 

But countries with excessive tolerance, giving freedom of religion and freedom of moral license, are held responsible by God

I would consider these virtues, my friend. Not vices. You try living as a religious minority and see how that goes.

When God said, "Have no other gods,"

God also said "I am the Lord your God who took you out of Egypt." That was the target of that message.

I'll give you an example. I tell you that you are free to indulge in any particular activity you want in your back yard, whether recreational or business, as long as it doesn't disturb me, your neighbor. I'm giving you freedom of choice, but not unlimited freedom of choice.

When governments tell people they can exercise their religious freedoms, it doesn't mean they can exercise any religious freedom. Determining the right religion is the domain of God Himself, and also the responsibility of those who know Him. Those who don't know Him obviously aren't going to require the right religion, but can still determine a generally acceptable morality even in their ignorance.

The US began with several religious viewpoints, and the founding fathers began as a compromise, between Christians of several kinds and Deists, as well as perhaps  even Jews and Muslims. Deists would tolerate Jews and Muslims, and Christians would tolerate Jews and Muslims without enabling them to try to displace a Christian State.

But gradually, tolerance for a mixed State has prevailed, as even the original documents reveal. The US was a mixed religious State from the beginning, and the result has been an eroded morality. Free choice, but a wrong religious choice.

Wrong religious choice- according to you. Why should you get to decide and not me?

I would inform you, however, that even though I believe in a singular Christian system, I do not believe in persecuting those of other religions. Again, they have freedom of conscience--just not freedom to promote anarchy, civil disobedience, and schism in our society.

Much good has been done with civil disobedience, a shame you can't see that.

Obviously, I have a different view of "freedom of religion" and "freedom of speech" than is stated in our Bill of Rights. I hope this helps you understand my position?

Yes. And it's terrifying.

[RabbiKnife]

Greatly terrifying

[Athanasius]

Yes. And it's terrifying.

It reads to me like "We live in the real world where sometimes even a good country is confronted with only bad choices" was glossed over. I think it's safe to assume that we've all had to make decisions - at least one - that included only non-ideal options: which is the best worst option? The least worst? And so on.

Divorced from that context it's easy to talk about proper religion blah blah blah. With that context in mind, or having had to make such decisions? It's not so easy. I know for myself the religious (read Christian) crowd would have driven me to suicide if I did only what they thought I ought to do, was properly religious, and so on.

[RandyPNW]

It's "terrifying" to throw your lot in which those who promote freedom of idolatry in a Christian society!

Is it correct to require political conformity to a single religious system? Even non-Christian Jews in Israel recognize the importance of preserving a specifically Jewish State. To allow sectarian division in a truly Christian country is to invite schism, rebellion, and revolution. There has to be some sort of preventive to guard against political anarchy.

Is it correct to require a stable set of moral guidelines in a State nominally Christian? To do otherwise is to invite disorder and chaos, since behavior considered "reprobate" by the Christian society is a threat to Christian families.

For example, freedom for polygamy or for homosexuality poses a threat to the family structure in a Christian system. We can't just allow "moral choice" at the expense of political order.

Those who view themselves as believers in polygamy, such as Mormons, or who view themselves a homosexuals, may believe what they want. But they should not be given freedom to indulge their acts in a Christian society and so threaten social order according to Christian standards.

I'm terrified of giving America a "green light" to serve Baal, to practice homosexuality, to follow other religious values the equivalent of "evil." God told us not to do that, and I choose to fear Him!

Growing up in a liberal society and being given a liberal education has corrupted our minds, to some degree. Let's make our minds conform with the biblical mind-set?

[RandyPNW]

Yes. And it's terrifying.

It reads to me like "We live in the real world where sometimes even a good country is confronted with only bad choices" was glossed over. I think it's safe to assume that we've all had to make decisions - at least one - that included only non-ideal options: which is the best worst option? The least worst? And so on.

Divorced from that context it's easy to talk about proper religion blah blah blah. With that context in mind, or having had to make such decisions? It's not so easy. I know for myself the religious (read Christian) crowd would have driven me to suicide if I did only what they thought I ought to do, was properly religious, and so on.

I see the goal of the Evil One is to sow anarchy, and to invite confusion, frustration, and a "give up" attitude. Clarity comes from focusing on God's mind-set--not someone's idea of God's mind-set, but the mind-set set forth in the pages of Scriptures.

Why get confused because a bunch of liberal theologians have a thousand different ideas of what the Scriptures say? A simple look at basic biblical standards will tell you what the right political and moral system requires. But yes, it isn't so simple!

[RandyPNW]

The bible is theocratic- but only for the Jews.

You and I are *always* going to have a problem with this viewpoint. I *don't* believe theocracy was only in the Old Testament. Jesus preached the "Kingdom of God," which is the Christian standard.

Sadly, the greatest opposition to standard Christian thinking about this political reality are liberal Christian theologians, who have succeeded in opposing it and in watering it down. Today's modern liberal theologians are the equivalent of the OT "priests of Baal," in my opinion.

God also said "I am the Lord your God who took you out of Egypt." That was the target of that message.

The same God who targeted Israel coming out of the wilderness is the God of all history. His standards, political and moral, have not changed.

[Athanasius]

I see the goal of the Evil One is to sow anarchy, and to invite confusion, frustration, and a "give up" attitude. Clarity comes from focusing on God's mind-set--not someone's idea of God's mind-set, but the mind-set set forth in the pages of Scriptures.

Deciding between only bad options is not the exclusive domain of Satan and his mischievious manipulations (although, speaking of manipulations...).

Why get confused because a bunch of liberal theologians have a thousand different ideas of what the Scriptures say? A simple look at basic biblical standards will tell you what the right political and moral system requires. But yes, it isn't so simple!

There are without a doubt, liberal theologians. But they aren't throwing out 'a thousand different ideas of what the Scriptures say' in some special way, or at least, in a way that conservative or orthodox theologians don't already do themselves. 'Liberal theologians' are, by and large, boogeymen (I know my fair share, and I don't just mean read). Besides, why are we assuming liberal theologians are wrong or have nothing of value to offer? That they only invite confusion?

It's not simple, and there's no such thing as a 'simple look at the basic biblical standards' that inform political and moral systems. As I said, something like this is the view that started leading me down the path towards suicide. It sounds great on paper, but its reality is the stuff of horror. Hard decisions sometimes have to be made, and theology doesn't just breeze through the difficulties of life as if we have some immediately knowable, stable base. It's like, here's the ideal, and here are my choices, and none of them are good, and all of them conflict with my theological tenants, so how do I then live (see what I did there)?

A great many Christians I've met simply bang on about the same thing over and over again as if it's going to help after the thousandth repetition. People need the freedom to be wrong, to act immorally in the eyes of others (to a limit). I in fact made the best worst decision I've ever made. Plenty of Christians have an extraordinarily low view of me because of it, but they didn't offer anything other than rote repetitions of belief A and proposition B. As we're all aware, life is hard, and complicated, and messy, and sometimes the bad that comes from a bad decision is better than the worse thing that could have happened from a worse decision. Theologically that only speaks towards the reality that we all fall short.

[Fenris]

Is it correct to require political conformity to a single religious system?

For a Christian, yes. Jesus said "render unto Ceasar", but I guess you know better.

[Fenris]

Even non-Christian Jews in Israel recognize the importance of preserving a specifically Jewish State. To allow sectarian division in a truly Christian country is to invite schism, rebellion, and revolution.

You obviously don't know many Jews and nothing about the internal politics of Israel. There's tons of sectarian division in the Israeli government and in Israeli politics generally. And Israel being a "Jewish state" doesn't impact the Christians and Muslims in the country in any way.

So stop using bad examples.

Growing up in a liberal society and being given a liberal education has corrupted our minds, to some degree. Let's make our minds conform with the biblical mind-set?

I grew up in a household of biblical values and studied in Yeshiva until I was 20 years old. I'm currently enrolled in an ordination program. How much more biblical are you looking for? Or is your use of the term "biblical" intended to mean "people who agree with me"?

[Fenris]

You and I are *always* going to have a problem with this viewpoint. I *don't* believe theocracy was only in the Old Testament. Jesus preached the "Kingdom of God," which is the Christian standard.

The Christian "kingdom of God" is spiritual. Again how is it that I understand Christian theology better than you do?

The same God who targeted Israel coming out of the wilderness is the God of all history. His standards, political and moral, have not changed.

But they also don't apply to people not under the covenant.