tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post8895164364341574320..comments2024-03-28T03:25:49.943-04:00Comments on Common Denominator: Conflict with the State 1Ken Schenckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09745548537303356655noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-42639811778272028352012-05-20T22:42:53.743-04:002012-05-20T22:42:53.743-04:00There are people that might use "give to Ceas...There are people that might use "give to Ceasar what is Ceasars". Or Pauls recommendation on magistrates to venerate The State. It clear to me that Christ toppled not only the Temple and Jewish Culture, but also Rome. Here we have the question...Christ were you not persecuted by the state? So with that is another question.. Christ are you not a fulfillment of the law? What is the law based on? It was based on liberty. Still the cultural disposition we had as Americans, and at one time The West and elsewhere had shared the liberty of Christ. Causing those not of such to question the dispensation and seeming partiality. Leading us to the realization that yes, Nation State; amen.Mr. Mcgranorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12851136550476241757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-43637650819509388342012-05-14T15:46:06.868-04:002012-05-14T15:46:06.868-04:00Some do not see the need for "faith", as...Some do not see the need for "faith", as the political realm is to be the place of liberty, whether practicing one's religious conscience, or practicing one's atheistic conscience or one's agnostic conscience. <br /><br />In the "two Kingdom" understanding, whether one believes, or not, is a matter of commitment to either the State or the Church, as to one's function. Personally, I think the "two Kingdom" approach is a way to resusitate the Church, as people become more educated, to give the Church a "mission"...Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-44880059763982525762012-05-14T11:30:46.516-04:002012-05-14T11:30:46.516-04:00But, I do not adhere to a "two Kingdom" ...But, I do not adhere to a "two Kingdom" view, because it is useful for the former, to subvert the later in their "liberty of conscience". Political expediency is the pounding point to implement a global agenda upon the unsuspecting and use religion to do so.<br /><br />When such politicalization happens, then the "evil" that the political elite do, is at the costs of everyone else, but it is justified as social utitlity and the "common good". Such moralizing is athema to liberty, itself, I think. Because the State will do it's will and the "Christian" will be told to do its bidding "as unto God", apart from individual choice. Resistance has been a "Christian" right to resist the State's demands for compliance.Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-22580530295692583652012-05-14T10:20:15.835-04:002012-05-14T10:20:15.835-04:00Have you heard of Agenda 21, the U.N.'s design...Have you heard of Agenda 21, the U.N.'s design for the "globe's future"? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzEEgtOFFlM<br /><br />And then there is the political mess in Egypt, that sounds like ideology, instead of ethnicity will be the next "facism".<br /><br />The former could be "christianized" in the sense of equalizing the playing field, but it leads to enslavement of a communist system of government, because it is collectivist, at core. The State (government), then, is supreme, not liberty of conscience. Choice is determined by environmental concerns.<br /><br />The later is a radicalized idea of God and religion's "cause", which could be compliant to "christianized" ideas, but undermines diversity, in understanding and practice, which limits humans.<br /><br />Both seem to subvert what our Founders viewed as "givens"; rights, and liberty.<br /><br />Laws were to protect rights, while liberty resulted from limiting "The State". Christians seem to want to "use" the State to implement their own understanding of "God", which limits liberty, just as Islamic forces seek to do.<br /><br />Luther's view was based on his understanding of "faith", which was anti-realist (con-substantiation). "Faith" made the communion cup sacred, as there was nothing sacred or secular, in and of itself. What one chooses to do (or not do) is a matter of "faith" (conscience). And it is no one else's business to prescribe "faith", as whatever is not of "faith" is sin. Such faith has a high view of "Providence", as one chooses to live their lives, they "trust in God".<br /><br />In the passage, Jesus seems to allow for such a view of "faith". Faith isn't a particular action, but a particular view.Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.com