September 24, 2008
-
Sarah Palin and the Second Coming of Jesus
Liberal bloggers are making a big deal about Sarah Palin’s belief that she will see Jesus in her lifetime.
She apparently made the statement in answer to a question in an interview:
“Munger also asked Palin if she truly believed in the End of Days, thedoomsday scenario when the Messiah will return. “She looked in my eyesand said, ‘Yes, I think I will see Jesus come back to earth in mylifetime.’” Here are the links: Link1 Link2
The reality is if Sarah Palin believes in the Second Coming of Jesus, it simply means she believes what she read in the Bible. Most people who believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible believe that Jesus will return to Earth.
Do you believe Jesus will return in our lifetime?
Comments (239)
People have been saying that for centuries. Nobody knows the day or hour and she’s a bit pretentious to say that.
Yay! I’m so special!
To answer your question, like, duh! I’m totally the bride of Christ. Just don’t tell First Dude! Heehee!
Well, it seems so.
Not necessarily in my lifetime. But I’m older than you.
He might. I do not pretend to know the answer to that.
@GodArt - I AGREE
only if science develops a means of bringing people back from the dead which i think is entirely possible.
I’ll believe it when I see it.
No, I don’t.
But she can, it’s not a big deal… Nobody knows, but if she honestly believes it, that’s her business. She must have a reason that she doesn’t want to share with us. Oh, big shocker. She doesn’t want to share non-political issues with the public. Crazy. Too bad she’s already put her family on the pedestal to be admired (and/or criticized to death) or I’d actually take her side on this.
I don’t know if it will be in our lifetime necessarily, as in I’ll be on Earth when it happens, but I definitely think the second coming of Jesus will happen, whether it be tomorrow or in 1,000 years.
I hope so.
Who knows? Only He does.
No.
I pray that I do but I don’t plan on it. “No one knows when that day will be except the Father.”
Whoa. This is a huge fucking-deal.
If the person next in line for the President truely believe in the imminent end of days, I would be concerned about her attitude and decision-making in foreign policy. Would she deal with Iran, North Korea, and Israel with happy thoughts of Nuclear Armageddon in the back of her mind? After all, with world=end, Jesus comes back!
All of this is compunded by how inexperienced and seemily stupid Sarah Palin is with matters of international relations.
@huginn - Exactly. This woman is just bat-shit crazy.
http://www.xanga.com/In_Reason_I_Trust/675426766/item.html
Link ^ to a brand-new article that clearly articulates why and how this woman is nuttier than squirrel shit, and the horrifying implications of that.
Not really. On the other hand, it could be tonight. I think, as Christians, we’re supposed to live as if Jesus is coming soon. When the trumpet of the Lord shall sound and time shall be no more, and the morning breaks eternal bright and fair, when the saved of earth shall gather over on the other shore, and the roll is called up yonder, I’ll be there.
That’s my story and I’m sticking with it
Read Matt. 24. No one except the Father knows the day or hour, but we are to be ready and prepared. My husband always complains about the question, “What would you do if you only had 24 hours to live?” You should be living your life in such a way that you wouldn’t do anything differently (see Power_Ranger_Freak for more). I’m glad that Sarah Palin has that viewpoint. I just hope she’s ready!
I don’t know when Jesus will return. I can only hope it’ll be soon, especially if Obama gets elected.
OH. MY. WHAT?
I can’t imagine someone who honestly believes what they read, something so clearly preposterous, as absolutely true doesn’t have psychiatric help.
But that’s me.
@huginn - That’s exactly what I was thinking. If she believes Jesus is coming back soon, she believes Armageddon is soon, so what’s the point in trying real hard? Eeeesh I hope they don’t win.
@KechiNeko244 - Please don’t vote.
@Ima_BearKat - I’m glad that Sarah Palin has that viewpoint. I just hope she’s ready!
If McCain is elected, I hope that the only task he ever delegates Palin is to babysit his grandkids.
Christians are supposed to act AS IF Jesus were returning. He’s not really coming back.
yes I do. We dont know the day or the hour but I hope it is to be soon.
I think both sides are overreacting.
I’m waiting for the gay messiah to baptize me in cum.
I can not think of anything less American than saying her faith makes her a bad person or a bad candidate. I may not interpret the Bible literally, but I do not have hatred for those that do. If the believers are right, I feel bad for the haters, they will have to be judged.
I don’t know. The Bible says only the Son and the Father have that knowledge. I hope He does, though. It would be quite a sight to see.
Who can say? I might get squashed by a bulldozer this afternoon for all I know.
I believe He’s coming back, but I don’t know if it will be in my lifetime or not.
ah, fundamentalists. always lending God a helping hand. where would we be without them?
Jesus has already returned. His presence is, in essence, in every instance of love, compassion, active understanding, active honesty, active respect, meekness, humility, kindness, goodness, gentleness, faithfulness, patience, peace, empathy, righteous justice, forgiveness, and grace. Jesus returns when those who follow his teachings adopt his character.
@KechiNeko244 - ”Because people are always tolerant of other religions unless that religion is Christianity.”
I’m sick of this tactic of Christians, playing the poor victim card. That’s pure, unadulterated bullshit. Baloney is baloney, whether Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or if you believe in holy magic elves. You happen to belong to a majority, one that constantly pushes for special privileges, and yet a lot of you have the nerve to whine that you’re so “victimized.” Stop the crying, it doesn’t look good.
Yes, but not in the rapture as most Christians believe. But I have no idea when that will be because Jesus himself said that only God the Father knows when that’ll be.
To answer your question, no. I do not believe it is possible for Jesus to return. He’s dead.
I wonder how people would feel if she believed aliens are coming to abduct her.
@In_Reason_I_Trust - I kinda thought her statement should be reversed … “Because people are always tolerant of other religions unless those people are Christians”
I don’t mean that across the board … but I do feel a lot of times that religions other than Christian has a live and let live attitude and respects the fact that people are different. COEXIST, right? But it seems that a lot of Christians have a “better than thou” attitude and look down upon people with different religions than their own.
@KechiNeko244 - oh pardon me. I wasn’t bitching. as a matter of fact, i said it’s not across the board. I live in the Bible Belt and it’s BAD around here. That’s why I said not all, but many. You don’t have to get so defensive. It was an opinion. I’m entitled to that, aren’t I?
@KechiNeko244 - But anyway, just because you don’t believe the same thing, it doesn’t make it preposterous. I bet you think the followers of Shinto are preposterous because they believe evil spirits will enter their homes if they don’t put salt at their doors!
Japanese culture is actually pretty secular. Elements of Buddhism, Christianity, or Shintoism doesn’t seep into public discourse or policy making.
No, wait, you probably don’t. Because people are always tolerant of other religions unless that religion is Christianity.
The anti-religious conteingent here on TheoCafe are most vocal with Christianity because that’s what we deal with. This country features a Christian majority, and a segments of those Christians are political, nutty, and evangelical.
I’ll take my free speech over your hurt feelings and sheltered conceptions of tolerance. At the point that Evangelical Christiancs take it as a moral imperative to share the “good word,” I’ll take my place in the marketplace of ideas and talk back.
Even the first Christians thought they’d see Jesus return in their lifetimes. I believe He’s coming back; but I also believe what it says in the Bible: “No man knows the day or the hour” That’s a total paraphrase, NOT an exact quote; and I have no idea where it appears other than “New Testament,” but you get the picture.
@KechiNeko244 - I dislike ALL revealed religions equally. I do focus my attacks on Christianity, because it so happens that those are the majority here, and those are the ones pushing for laws that enforce their beliefs on the population. If it was Hindus doing that, then my attacks would be directed at them. I will speak against ANYONE that threatens to curtail my liberties and impose their specific ideas onto the entire population.
http://www.xanga.com/In_Reason_I_Trust/675426766/item.html
@cre13 - Not sure I got entirely what you’re trying to say. It seems you’re saying that a lot of Christians look down upon others. If so, I agree. They feel more threatened by unbelievers than they do by practitioners of other religions. At least they have belief in supernatural nonsense in common. But, with atheists, they don’t have that common ground, and they tend to lash out against us more.
You will see Jesus at the end of your life – either on earth or in heaven. Does it matter where it happens?
IDK
@In_Reason_I_Trust - Yeah that’s pretty much what I meant. I just feel that around here – where I live (the southeast) it’s shameful to not be a Christian. Well, that’s what they want you to think. It’s evil. It’s wrong. Blah blah blah… Not all Christians are like that. My parents for example. They are tolerant of my beliefs and don’t look down on me. But they are a small minority.
@KechiNeko244 - …People never complain about Muslims believing that women are unclean, and they never complain about the hindus worshiping blood-thirsty gods, yet you’re a looney if you believe in Christ. So yeah. Not crying. Just pointing out that people are very hypocritical about the whole hating religion thing.
There is no relevancy. There is no motivation in a general discussion of religion.
I don’t see how you, in all your intellect, can draw a link between Sarah Palin and fundamnetalist Islam or fringe Hinduism. In political discussion of the Republican party and of Sarah Palin, Christianity and faith is a natural topic. If you want to cry and pout, it would be best if your had a basis for it.
I believe one should always be READY for the coming of Jesus because we know not the day nor the hour. I would never say with that kind of certainty that He was coming in my lifetime. In general I would say a response like this would give one serious pause about someone’s judgment/beliefs, even to another believer like me.
I can only hope..
I think it’s going to happen, but I don’t necessarily think it will be in the next 70-some years.
Really the religion card. Seriously? I don’t believe that Jesus is coming back but that is just me. If someone else believes that he will, ok thats fine with me. that’s their thing. But as for Sara Palin, I’m still not voting for her or John McCain.
I grew up being told it would be in my lifetime and always hoped it wouldn’t be.
@nephyo - Hee hee, agreed.
Wow. There is a huge difference between believing Jesus will return sometime and believing Jesus will return in your lifetime. What a kook. If McCain wins there’s a 17% chance he will die and this nut will become president. What a joke.
it requires an immense amount of hubris to claim knowledge of the arrival of christ. personally i’ve always believed in not making divine predictions seeing as i am a mere mortal human. from what i understand protestants do that but i still say it is impossible and hubristic to claim.
@In_Reason_I_Trust - I agree. Members of every religious group have to deal with stereotypes. Muslims are looked upon as terrorists, Pagans as crazy Satan worshipers, etc. It’s not just Christians.
In some countries, yes, Christians are persecuted for their faith, as in tortured and killed. Several centuries ago, people accused of practicing witchcraft were tortured and killed. Falun Gong practitioners in China are being tortured and killed.
In a world where religious persecution and intolerance is a very real thing, it seems like an insult to play the victim card just because someone disagrees with you or won’t accept your religion. (and members of many different religions do that, not just Christians.)
Yes, I believe Jesus will come back. I also believe it’s likely to happen in my lifetime, though no person can know when it will happen. How this affects Palin’s ability to lead, I do not see, except that maybe she would feel more urgency to get things done.
depends on what you call jesus,,, i suppose he returns in everyones lifetime,,, or not…
LOL!
Seriously?
How is it that countless generations of Christians have read that same bible containing the same messages, yet for some reason they will supposedly only ring true for Sarah Palin’s generation and not for any of the countless others who have read the same readings and beleived the same beliefs?
It’s insulting that Sarah Palin and other current Christians continue to beleive that they are somehow unique or special compared to countless other Christians in the past who were proved wrong when they made the same claims that their ‘savior’ would return within their own lifetimes and didn’t.
Once I read that there was a human sized anthropromorphic black cat who wore a tall red and white hat who would go abourt causing mischief and fun wherever he roamed and who know how to snow shoe, but even as a child I had the same good sense not to believe either it or any of the outrageous claims made by evangelicals.
That is why they call them liberal bloggers.
You know I laugh my ass off every time a bigotboy like “in_reason_i_trust” calls someone Batshit crazy. He’s the Batshit posterboy!!! LOL!!!
I don’t spend a whole lot of time thinking about it. And I think Sarah Palin is a nutcase.
@huginn - Indeed, it’s something to consider.
obama says that he is a christian. if he actually is a christian then he believes in the bible. if he believes in the bible then he believes in the second coming of jesus.
how many “christian” presidents have we had?
sarah palin is more open with her beliefs and faith than a lot of people. for that we call her crazy?
@Pickwick12 - Interesting… if you believe it is “likely” to happen in your lifetime, why? Why not more likely in any other time period in the future?
@mamalove@momaroo - sarah palin is more open with her beliefs and faith than a lot of people. for that we call her crazy?
1. As a policy maker, she intermingles faith and governance.
2. She is nuttier than mainstream Christians.
3. Many of her positions were influenced by or reinforced by the particulars of her faith.
Nope.
I believe no one knows when He’ll return.
I do believe he will return, I hope it’s soon!
I believe that it could very well happen in our lifetime.
http://www.xanga.com/In_Reason_I_Trust/675426766/item.html
Click ^
@nidan - And you are the master of claiming victory in an argument where you NEVER ONCE offer a shred of support for your beliefs. I find that terribly sad, yet funny at the same time.
You know what’s sadder, though? That you keep going after me, unprovoked. GET A LIFE.
@In_Reason_I_Trust - Your own comments are proof enough of how bigoted you are. At least to any reasonable person.
@nidan - Are you high? You did not address ONE item raised by my comment to you! Thank you for proving my point!
@In_Reason_I_Trust - If your refering to your comment on this post there’s nothing there I even take seriously. Just more of your blame-it-all-on-christians naziisms!
So why would I comment on any of that? You comments speak for themselves, bigotboy.
I don’t know whether to laugh at or feel sorry for her (..her being Sarah Palin)..
@nidan - Ooh, a moron called me “bigotboy” – a complete moron who cannot construct a basic argument, yet believes in his delusional mind that he has won an argument!! I COULDN’T CARE LESS WHAT YOU SAY.
Bottom line: You never had one SHRED of evidence for your beliefs, and you were beaten to a pulp in GAG’s blog a while ago. It was totally hilarous watching you claim victory, while NEVER ONCE addressing the actual arguments.
Your ignorance saddens me, and nothing you say matters to me.
yes
I hope not in my lifetime. I’m going to be pissed if it happens with that Mayan calendar thing. I’ll only be like 24. I want to live my life!
Now is the time for all in Government to be athiests!!!!
The rest of us can think what we please.
The Mayan Calender–the Mayans and many other cultures
and tribes beleived in Spider Woman, who taught them how
to weave. At the end of this epoch, Giant spiders are to
descend from the sky.
Not quite Armageddon.
No.
@mkenyon719 - People who think that will happen are dopes. Seriously, archaeologists have found Mayan calendars that point to years far past 2012.
@QuantumStorm - Because of Bible prophecy. Of course, it’s not possible to know for sure, but it appears that most of the things the Bible says will happen before Jesus returns have already happened. I would never presume to say that I know for sure; it could be another 10,000 years. However, it appears from Scripture that it will be soon.
If you listen to liberals then he already has. I have actually heard some liberals say that Obama is the second coming of Christ. I have heard numerous other liberals come very close to saying.
all you people are just stupid. I didn’t realize how stupid until just now. “There shall be wars, rumors of wars, nation rise against nation” I say she is right.
“Do you believe Jesus will return in our lifetime?”
Of course not. What is he, an idiot?
Yeah.
No, no, I’m just fucking with you.
@pkpiano2 - Do you realize that shit has happend all throughout natural history. That being said by Christ is like saying, Somewhere,sometime, it will rain. Then it will stop. Then maybe it will rain again.
who’s jesus?
Sarah Palin is a crazy nutjob.
yall are all nuts,,, the end of the world was a long time ago,,, i read the sign,,, and the guy carrying it looked knowledgable….
that was,,, i dunno,,,, years ago….
Yes, I believe that Jesus will return within the next 5 – 10 years, perhaps sooner. I am not sure I will be alive, because I expect there to be a large number of martyrs prior to His second coming due to persecution the likes of which has not been seen since the inquisition and the religious wars. Coming soon to a city near you….
I don’t know ,but I look forward to it.
I hope so =]
The bigotry of the left is palpable in this thread.
I really don’t know when Jesus is coming back. Part of me would like it to be today, as I’d love to leave this hate-filled world and be with my Savior face-to-face. Part of me would like it to be as far in the future as possible, so everyone would get as much opportunity as possible to choose eternal life. But whether it’s in the next hour or thousands of years from now, the wait will still be inconsequential compared to the eternity we’ll have with Him.
No…the world isn’t THAT fucked up yet for him to come. It could be worse, so much worse.
Me? No. But she does. That’s her thing.
I don’t think it really matters. But it doesn’t bother me at all. Why should it?
If you mean when Jesus walks on this earth as flesh and blood… who knows? I may not even be alive tomorrow, much less when that occurs. But Jesus is in my heart now, and that’s what matters now.
The early disciples, particularly Paul, believed that Christ was coming back in their lifetime, too. I would hesitate to vote for her if she believed that Christ was coming back soon to the point where she wouldn’t complete actions or wouldn’t enact preventative measures or do things to ensure the longevity of this country based on her personal belief.
I’m sure I’ll see Jesus, but I will most likely have to die first.
Does this mean Sarah Palin really is the devil? Because if she is elected I fear the end of days is coming . . . . .
Most people who have any fucking sense at all would be a little worried about how a person who believes that the world will end in her lifetime would run a country.
And now, with dread, I turn to the previous comments…
We don’t know…all i know is He’s coming soon…basically.
Hope not.
oh my god shes looney.
@huginn - I applaud you, but I am truly disturbed that I had to read fourteen comments before finding even a whiff of sanity.
Not until we fix this place up.
@ducati623 - Does this mean Sarah Palin really is the devil? Because if she is elected I fear the end of days is coming . . . . .
If the Republicans win, I would seriously wish the best of health to John McCain. =(
@In_Reason_I_Trust - You only call me a moron because I’m openly a christian. Not much different from why fred Phelps thinks all homosexuals are evil, and why my great uncle thought all blacks were inferior.
You simply prove my point over and over, bigotboy.
@Pickwick12 - Just the opposite, in fact. If the world’s going to end, why give a shit about poverty, health care, or the environment? Not that politicians actually do, of course…
@nidan -
“You only call me a moron because I’m openly
a christian. Not much different from why fred Phelps thinks all
homosexuals are evil, and why my great uncle thought all blacks were
inferior.”
What are you even trying to say?
@nidan - No, moron, I call you a moron because you fit the definition of moron perfectly, and not because you’re a delusional believer in a fake god. If an atheist displayed the same utter inability to address an argument that you marvelously displayed, I’d call him a moron too. Once more, you prove my point – you’re a moron. You can’t grasp a very basic statement. Tsk, tsk. How hilarously sad.
@JimiRy - Thanks. =)
But seriously, I think everyone has to be very scared at how much of a wildcard Sarah Palin is. We don’t know much about her. She could be the greatest thing since slice bread (Abe Lincoln didn’t have much experience heading into the white house); but then again, she could be a parody of G.W. Bush. Given McCain’s health and advanced age, we all ahve to take seriously the prospect of Governor Palin inheriting the White House.
It’s not worth taking chances with something as important as the Presidency.
@In_Reason_I_Trust - Case in point!!!
Nothing I say no amount of logic will ever change your mind. You are a bigot!!!
@nidan - Thank you.
It’s not often that I see the Internet equivalent of someone sticking their fingers in their ears, shutting their eyes tightly, and screaming “BIGOT!”
It’s extremely entertaining.
@nidan - That’s not what a bigot is. Hence, ONCE AGAIN, you are a moron. Gawds, you’re hilarious, and even JimiRy ^ agrees. Goodbye delusional moron.
@huginn - Not that I would ever discourage you from voting for Obama, but really the presidentcy is not that important in the grand sceme of things.
We’re a two hundred year old country that is hooked on oil like a narcodic and on verge of infrastructure colaps unless we find a way to transport goods and supplies into our over populated cities.
A thousand years from now do you really thing anyone world wide is going to be able to name three US presidents, total.
Maybe but I doubt it.
Dude your obsessed with Sarah Palin… Do you have a cardboard cutout of her in your bedroom or somethin?
@In_Reason_I_Trust - What’s hilarious is you are so fanatical that no matter how many times I comment you can’t not reply.
You are so fixated on your made-truths and bigotries that you simply can’t avoid it.
You just like a jahova’s witness. And I’ve seen dozens of people (Most recently godlessliberal) who get the punchline even though your bigoted brain can’t.
@JimiRy - You only assume my eyes are closed and ears are shut. If you have anything logical or interesting to say I’ll listen.
I have plent of history with bigotboy to back up my claims about him as does half of Xanga.
no i dont think so. its disturbing that our leaders anticipate the end of the world in their lifetime. i think almost every christian entertains that idea, now and in the past 2k years. im buddhist myself, so i realize we are all in delusion.
@whataboutbahb - Ongoing thing, you’ve missed months of this conversation.
My very first comment is all I’ve said on the current post.
@mejicojohn - We must ride in the same circles, I met that same dude. He looked kinda scary to me! And I hang out with bikers!
I do not believe Jesus will return. I do believe that most rhetoric of that type leads to warmongering in the Middle East. Many Christians have a zeal for trying to make biblical prophecy (as they interpret it) come true. There is actually a real incentive for meddling in foreign affairs, with the idea that if A. B, and C can come true (or be made to happen) Jesus will come back and the believers who are alive at the time will not have to face death. Sort of a ‘prophecy escapism.’
@huginn - McCain Presidential care package: 4 year supply of Ensure(Chocolate favor), external defibrillator and some sunblock
@nidan - How effective a President is, and how large of a difference he makes depends on a lot of things.
For instance, Herbert Hoover was at the wrong place and the wrong time when the Great Depression hit. Whoever was in office, was doomed with unpreparedness and blame for the markget crash. There was no difference here.
President Bush probably handled 9/11, Afghanistan, and Iraq much different han Al Gore would have. There were great impact in lives, the economy, and foreign relations with how the Bush administration handled things (for better or worse).
If this election sees a clear Democratic house/senate majority, and Barack in office, legislation would be flying off the shelves. If the Republicans relcaim congress and Barack wins, much less would be done legislatively (and vice versa).
@JimiRy - @whataboutbahb - The evidence speaks for itself on this nidan dude. Watch him get beaten to a pulp by xangan NQbass7 in the link below, while he repeatedly dances around the arguments.
http://weblog.xanga.com/GodAintGood/648688527/intelligent-design—not-for-intelligent-people.html
No further questions, your honor.
@huginn - my thoughts exactly.
@huginn - Actually you and I are disagreed on both Hoover and Gore.
Hoover might have gotten reelected if he had done something/anything to help people who’d been hurt by the market crash. He’d still get the blame for unpreparedness, you’re right about that, but he would’ve fared better historically.
I don’t really think there would’ve been an apreciable difference between the past 8 years had it been Gore.
(Well maybe Farenhight 911 would’ve been a lot different.)
Remember Bush ran on doing the exact opposite from what he ended up doing. He origionally wanted to pull us out of these areas and cut spending.
Now there wasn’t a whole lot of difference between Bush and Gore to begin with, but when you consider how everything turned out, there’s even less.
@huginn - I agree with your statement that people who lean too heavily on the belief that Jesus is coming within, say, the next thirty years tend to have an uncomfortably positive view of war and destruction.
In addition, they tend toward a superstitious view of world events, trying to find each and every one in the Bible’s prophetic books.
Where Sarah Palin would go with her belief, we have no way of knowing. But it gives me pause.
I want to know whether McCain/Palin is the Republican ticket or the Neo-con ticket.
@In_Reason_I_Trust - See you can’t not reply. It’s hilarious!!!
@huginn - BTW: all the above was beyond my origional point.
Who in a thousand years is going to really give a crap about the things that we argue most about right now. Especially about who is the next president.
It’s going to happen eventually… who’s to say it won’t happen in her lifetime?
In any case all the presidents up to now (with possibly the exception of Clinton and FDR) believed the Bible to some extent, so…? Our founders even based our founding documents and set up of government on the Bible- and so far it’s working rather well. Even the separtion of powers is derived from a biblical understanding:
During the creation of the Constitution, James Madison proposed a “separation of powers,” dividing the government into three separate branches- an idea that mirrored the three functions of governance ascribed to the Lord in Isaiah 33:22, “For the Lord is our Judge [judicial], the Lord is our lawgiver [legislative], the Lord is our king [executive].”
I think it is a boon to our nation to have solid believers in office. Go Palin!
Theres no way all Republicans are this batshit crazy.
@PreciousOnyx - How thoroughly deluded and misinformed.
http://www.xanga.com/In_Reason_I_Trust/622925388/item.html
Nothing personal, but people with beliefs like yours are a menace to civilized society.
I don’t interpret the Bible literally, though no one should be going apeshit because Palin believes in a second coming.
He might. No one can ever predict. Technically, there needs to be a “great awakening” surge where millions are led to Christ before He comes again… according to the prophecy.
I believe it will happen, but I don’t know when. Go Palin!
Sarah Palin thinks like 1st century Christians who believe that Jesus would comeback before they died. How do we know? It says so right there in Christian scriptures. Well we Jews know better. When the Messiah shows up, lots of CHristians are going to be upset because he will not be a Christian at all, he will be a Jew!
Yes, I believe He will return soon but I’m not sure if it will be during my lifetime. But probably in the next 30 years or so. I pray that He does return soon as things here are getting so bad. I like Governor Palin — she has many of the same beliefs that I have. God Bless Sarah!!
McCain = impulsive and irresponsible decisions = Palin for VP.
I don’t want to mess this up. Its too important a question. I want to believe that whenever Jesus returns that I’ll be ready. The problem is that if we really believed that Jesus’ return was imminent we would likely act a great deal differently. Come Judgement Day there are going to be alot surprised people.
I don’t know whether it will be in my lifetime or not. I know I’ll just be thankful when He gets here.
Jesus will return if Palin gets elected
@In_Reason_I_Trust - Are they? There just happens to be more proof of the bible’s truth than that you ate lunch yesterday. I have every reason to believe the Bible- it’s stood up to every test that’s ever been thrown at it over the last 2000 years- even your own unbelief proves it true.. did you ever think of that? Well, it just so happens that the freedoms we enjoy in Western civilization are based on the Bible- that’s fact. People are so quick to point out philosophers like John Locke- but the truth is even Locke got his ideas from Christians. Ever heard of “Lex Rex?” That is the source Locke got his ideas from- and it was written by a Christian named Samuel Rutherford who was strongly influenced by John Calvin. I do my research, do you?
I would rather argue that atheism and modernism are more to blame for society’s problems and attrocities than Christianity. In the last 100 years alone atheistic ideals such as Marxism have claimed the lives of 100s of millions- and still counting as the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, South America, N Korea, and Vietnam among others still torment and kill their own people year after year after year. And that’s not counting the effects of the eugenics movement that has claimed millions more lives here in the West, not to mention the abortion movement…
When was the last truly Christian attrocity? Hundreds of years ago? Atheism is still killing.
I think we’re better off as a society believing in God than not believing- and history backs me up on this one big time.
@PreciousOnyx - I don’t have enough time to address the MANY horribly mistaken ideas you are putting forth in your comment. You are terribly brainwashed, sadly.
@PreciousOnyx -
“Even the separtion of powers is derived from a
biblical understanding:”
Not quite. Separation of powers within government as we know it (in the classic liberal form) has its beginnings in the Enlightenment (quite a few years after Isaiah was written) and Montesquieu is most famous for advocating such a system (though it is somewhat funny since it is usually thought he advocated it based on how well it worked within the british government, but this was based on a misunderstanding of how the british government worked then since the british government really did not have a clear seperation of powers between legislative and executive and judicial was interwoven in both quite a bit as well).
“Our founders even based our founding documents and set up of government on the Bible- and so far it’s working rather well.”
Not really. The vast majority of the founding fathers beleived in God, but many were only deists who either didn’t believe parts of the bible or even huge sections of it. Thomas Jefferson even had his own version of the Bible. Evidence seems to point to the founding fathers drawing on enlightenment thinkers such as Locke, Montesquieu, and Rousseau more then the Bible for political theory.
“an idea that mirrored the three functions of
governance ascribed to the Lord in Isaiah 33:22, “For the Lord is our
Judge [judicial], the Lord is our lawgiver [legislative], the Lord is
our king [executive].”"
Not at all. So how in the world is this seperation of powers? There are plenty of medieval documents that point to the ruler being in charge of writing the laws, punishing people, and ruling everyone. Our government is not set up that way though. Seperate is a key word here. The verse you provided in no way shows a seperation of powers for those 3 functions. It might make a nice sermon, if that is where you heard this from, but it really has no basing in actual political theory at all.
@whataboutbahb - Nicely stated. But, I wouldn’t really bother with that person. He seems to have left planet Earth completely, and is thoroughly awash in superstition, which leads to revisionist history distortions.
@PreciousOnyx -
“People are so quick to point out philosophers like John Locke- but the truth is even Locke got his ideas from Christians.”
Um, to be fair most every political theorist in western europe in medieval period or at the beginning of the enlightenment period got their ideas from “Christianity.” The Divine Right of Kings was explicitly based on scripture (Romans 13:1-6) and this was one of the most dominating political theories of the medieval period. The ways early enlightenment political theorist could counter this was by either using other scripture references (like Rutherford did by citing Deuteronomy 17) or by attacking the divine right of kings head on (which Hobbes did, though his secular government was still pretty authoritarian). The further you get removed from the medieval time span, the less reliance you have on scripture references though since political theory no longer has its basing in a religious document.
no i don’t.
but Palin is hot
@PreciousOnyx - I would point to the killing of doctors in the name of God, or the bombing of abortion clinics, as “Christian” atrocities.
“But, oh,” you say, “those aren’t really Christians! We embrace peace, blah blah blah.”
YES, I know Christians embrace peace. Most atheists embrace reason. Not all of them do. Stalin would be a great example – the man was twisted and insane and, it must be said, not a man of God.
But most atheists are no more harmful than peace-loving Christians.
It’s understandable that you would get upset by people citing murderers as exemplars of Christian philosophy – but it’s downright stupid to turn around and do the same thing to atheists.
Also, LOL @ a complete lack of historical understanding! Great job!
@In_Reason_I_Trust - @whataboutbahb - how do you know that it is not YOU who is brainwashed?
He might. He can come whenever he wants. He is God, you know.
@In_Reason_I_Trust -
Most people listen to information if it’s presented in what they view as a fair and objective manner. It doesn’t mean that it will change their opinion, but at least they are listening. Insulting them usually makes this process less effective, and turns the conversation more into a pissing match more than anything else.
@JimiRy - When a Christian harms someone they do so in direct opposition to the Bible. They may be Christians but they are being inconsistent.
When an atheist harms someone they are being true to their humanistic autonomy as they believe there is no higher power by which to judge their actions than that which they choose to submit to. And exactly how have I misunderstood history again? Please make yourself plain.
@PreciousOnyx -
“how do you know that it is not YOU who is brainwashed?”
That implies I stated that I thought you were brainwashed, which i never did (nor do I think that).
@PreciousOnyx -
“When an atheist harms someone they are being
true to their humanistic autonomy as they believe there is no higher
power by which to judge their actions than that which they choose to
submit to.”
Actually you can make the arguement that they are acting against enlightened self-interest (when they harm a person w/o any justification they are contributing to a system of social function that could end up with that very person being harmed w/o any justification.)
@whataboutbahb - He’s not listening. You’ve already explained how he’s distorting history, yet look at his comment above. He’s still asking (defiantly) to be proved wrong about history, as if that hadn’t already happened. And then he goes on to spew out the old, OLD and ridiculously mistaken idea that unless there is a higher power, people can have no morals. I stand by what I said about this guy. He’s too far gone into La-La land to have any sort of meaningful debate.
I think this woman has completely lost her marbles…
@whataboutbahb - Nonetheless, the founding of our nation is not without deep influence from Christianity. There is nothing inherently wrong with the Divine Right of kings- merely the abuse rulers have used it for. A good ruler would only wield his power for justice as God intended- the whole point was that society- being made up of sinful man needs governence in order to maintain order and peace. I will not dispute that some Christian rulers have obviously done poorly.
But remember- God did not originally intend for His people to need a civil king. God fully intended to be king of Israel but in Samuel we read that they rejected God and wanted a man for king so they could be like everyone else. Our founders understood this and while they may have taken in ideas from Renaissance thinkers- they are not at all the single source.
And that quote from James Madison is legit- and if that was his basis for the separation of powers- as he was the architect of the Constitution- then that was its source for the Constitution.
I don’t know if He’ll come back in our lifetime, but I do truly believe He’ll come back.
God can come at anytime
@paoguy118 - Wrong. Jesus said only the father knows. Jesus is (or at the least, was) ignorant on that point according to the bible.
@PreciousOnyx - Humanists believe in morality. It is only religious people who don’t, unless there is a god involved. However, according to humanists, harming someone else without a threat to you are your family/tribe/nation is contrary to evolution, actually.
@whataboutbahb - My point to preciousonyx is reiterated in what you said.
Yeah, I think so.
I don’t know when and where but I don’t think it is anytime soon. But with my luck I’ll click on post and POOF!
edit: Well, I’m still here . . . is that good or bad?
oh gawd, I hope not. Have you read revelations?
I stand corrected.
@whataboutbahb - Dang. You’re so good at this. Props. =)
As many, many others before me have said- nobody knows. It’s her business if she believes the second coming will happen in her life time. At this point, I’m not sure if I’m going to say I don’t think it’ll happen in this lifetime…
Some stated she’s Satan. Thats what I’ve read from AvenueToTheReal’s blog.
@PreciousOnyx -
“There is nothing inherently wrong with the Divine Right of kings”
Making the arguement that their is nothing inherently wrong with Romans 13:1-6 in the context of the time wouldn’t be all too difficult. Saying there is nothing inherently wrong with the Divine Right of kings, something that while drawn from scripture is not biblical in it of itself, is a more difficult arguement, especially if one believes in where western political theory has come so far. If you believe in the Divine Right of kings it should follow that you believe that the American Revolution was an act against God. Revolution, revolts, etc are not allowed under the Divine Right of kings. Arguments can be made that if a ruler is unjust, then he is not really a ruler and revolts can be justified, but these arguments chip away at the doctrine of the Divine Right of kings and try to expand the doctrine to include more. So I would have to disagree, from my current perspective I would view the Divine Right of kings as being inherently wrong.
“Nonetheless, the founding of our nation is not without deep influence from Christianity.”
Maybe deep would be too strong of a word for some people, but of course the U.S. and all of the rest of western society has had a significant influence from Christianity.
“But remember- God did not originally
intend for His people to need a civil king. God fully intended to be
king of Israel but in Samuel we read that they rejected God and wanted
a man for king so they could be like everyone else. Our founders
understood this…”
Yes, God wanted a theocracy, the people wanted a king. But our founders never wanted a theocracy. I don’t see how this is a valid comparison.
“…and while they may have taken in ideas from Renaissance thinkers- they are not at all the single source.”
Not to be nit-picky, but the Renaissance and Enlightenment are two different things. One deals primarily with art and science at an earlier time period, and the other is focused primarily on taking these advances in science as a sign the same advances can be done in philosophy (which political theory is part of) at a later time period.
But yes, I agree with what you are trying to convey. I don’t believe all the founders’ main ideas were taken from mostly a single source. There were many influences. I just am of the opinion the majority of these ideas either were born in the enlightenment time period, or were subsequent buildings on those ideas (A interesting read that deals primarily with this topic). (Though to be honest you can say the ideas “born” in the enlightenment period were influenced by ancient greek thought, but I would say there is enough of a distinction between the positive freedom that was at the heart of the majority of greek political theory and the negative freedom that was the basis for classic liberalism, which clearly was the main driving theory behind our founding fathers).
“And that quote from James Madison is
legit- and if that was his basis for the separation of powers- as he
was the architect of the Constitution- then that was its source for the
Constitution.”
If Madison wanted to base his reasoning for the seperation of powers in scripture, that’s fine. The fact remains is that without Montesquei the ideas of seperation of power would never had been as prominent, and may have never influenced madison. One can simply not draw out all the ideas that madison had on seperation of powers and checks and balances from that quote, it’s not possible. All madison did was reinterprete scripture with the ideas and words of his day. There is a reason historians credit Montesquie with fleshing out the ideas of seperation of powers and not madison or the writer of Isaiah.
No and definitely not in my lifetime.
@ELBOWpasta - you think SHE’S the one who put her family on the pedestal? you think covers of magizines’s saying she tried to hide her daughters pregnancy are her fault? why would she want that…
I don’t know. What people use as evidence for his coming back could be attributed to a number of things. He said he would come like a thief in the night, meaning that the more people expect him, the less likely it is that he actually is coming at that time.
I honestly don’t worry about it. Either he does and I’m good to go or I live out my days and see him anyway when it’s over.
@PreciousOnyx -
Here’s some further reading on the influences on the Constitution-
I would rephrase what is being said, but the article does a good job itself and I am running short on time so here would be the best quotes that deal directing with the issue (the article itself is about 3/4s of the way down the page)- Here.
“…The Origins of American Constitutionalism (hereafter, Origins),a 1988 book by political scientist Donald Lutz. On pages 136-149 of Origins, Lutz summarizes the results of a 1984 paper in which he and colleague Charles Hyneman analyze some 15,000 items of American political commentary published between 1760 and 1805 (“The Relative Influence of European Writers on Late Eighteenth-Century American Political Thought,” The American Political Science Review, 78 (1984), pp. 189-197; hereafter,Relative Influence). The purpose of the paper was to determine the sources that most influenced the development of American political thought during our nation’s founding period.”
While it is true the findings from Lutz and Hyneman support the idea that the Bible played an influence on early American politics:
“In particular, Lutz and Hyneman demonstrate that the Bible was the most frequently quoted source between 1760 and 1805, and he concludes that future research on the development of American political thought should include increased attention to “biblical and common law sources” (Relative Influence, p. 190).”
It is also true that scripture did not play that much of a prominent role when it came to the Constitution:
“in addition to their general citation count from 1760 to 1805, Lutz and Hyneman compile a count specific to political debate on the Constitution between the years 1787 and 1788 (the years corresponding to the drafting and ratification of the Constitution). According to Lutz, this sample “comes close to exhausting” the literature written on the Constitution during this period (Relative Influence, p. 194). If the founders believed that the Bible was truly relevant to the Constitution, Biblical citations should appear in abundance in this sample, but, they don’t. On the contrary, Biblical citations are virtually nonexistent in this sample. According to Lutz, federalist (i.e., pro-Constitution) writers never quoted the Biblein their political writings between 1787 and 1788. Conversely, anti-federalist writers quoted the Bible only 9% of the time. According to Lutz:
‘The Bible’s prominence disappears, which is not surprising since the debate centered upon specific institutions about which the Bible has little to say. The Anti-Federalists do drag it in with respect to basic principles of government, but the Federalist’s inclination to Enlightenment rationalism is most evident here in their failure to consider the Bible relevant….The debate surrounding the adoption of the Constitution was fought out mainly in the context of Montesquieu, Blackstone, the English Whigs, and major writers of the Enlightenment (Relative Influence, pp. 194-195, emphasis ours).’”
I have not read Lutz and Hyneman’s work myself, so if you have information that the portrayal of their work was twisted in this article or that they themselves (Lutz and Hyneman) were biased in their work let me know.
He’s already saved the earth…how many times does He have to return??? And if she gets in the Whitehouse, she will need all the help she can get. (and so will we)
the sage
I’m more worried about whether Palin might be Vice President before Jesus comes. Now that is scary.
@WayoftheWolf - You are so right; she is a joke, a farce, and Bush in drag.
Could be, who knows? We’re not supposed to know the day or the hour, but we ARE supposed to be prepared. The way things have been going lately in the world, some would say the signs are all there, and Christians who believe the Bible – of which there are millions, not just Sarah Palin – would love to be around for the second coming of Christ.
Christians have always, over the last two thousand years, tried to be prepared and thought it was going to happen in their lifetime. We’re not the only ones.
jim, you are spot on…yes, worrying whether Palin might be VP is more scary than anything! heaven help us!!!
the sage
Gbus?
i’d like to say i do. unfortunately, i’d be lying if i said i act accordingly. why must good deeds be motivated by reward? whether heaven is real or not, whoever you pray to, the world is a fucked up place. if you can do something to make it a better place, why not? i’m sick and tired of people using religion as an excuse to cause harm to their fellow man, physically or otherwise. i do believe that i will face judgement, whether it’s when Jesus comes back or sooner. therefore, i can’t worry about how others live their lives. i can’t vouch for them during judgement and they can’t vouch for me.
i wonder if those who use religion as an excuse to judge others or to harm anyone have really thought of what they would say if (their) God asks them, “wait… you did WHAT to one of my creations?! and you did it in MY name?!”
Sarah Palin can believe what she wants to believe so long as her policies are fair to Christians and non-Christians alike.
Jews got Jerusalem back in 1976.
The clock has been ticking since then. The time of the gentiles has been fulfilled.
I don’t suppose it matters what anyone chooses to believe on this issue though.
No I don’t believe in Jesus.
I do, I do! If a “normal” person would have said that, it wouldn’t have caused any controversy…
I think he comes and goes whenever and wherever he wants to.
I love how liberals, who boast that this country is not free enough to worship however one wants to, and that we should practice tolerance and acceptance would cut to criticizing Ms. Palin’s personal religious beliefs.
Uh. No.
@ncsbert - Yeah, because you mostly sound like a ton of crazy lunatics preaching doomsday theory. I mean, nothing against anyone, you’re free to believe God is a green space alien, but that’s why it doesn’t matter to us.
Just because Sarah Palin said something, doesn’t mean she meant it.
I know for a fact that religious beliefs can influence (some) people when it comes to voting, so she might very well have been lying.
Even if she was telling the truth, people should not call her crazy for it. Many people believe what is written in the bible, and I do not think that’s enough to make someone a fool or a “nut” or whatever what you want to call her. Considering that there is still no proof that the bible isn’t true, she might be right.
.. Personally, I don’t know if I will ever see Jesus. I do not even know if he was/is real or not.
prob not. seems like sarah is aiming for priest rather than VP.
literalism in religion is insanity. james hillman much?
I hope so.
She has a different faith that I. I don’t hope for the world to end during my lifetime.
I’m sure He will return, but I’m not sure if it will be in my lifetime, because I’m already 70. It may be in yours.
I lean towards the preterist viewpoint. I believe that the book of revelation has already happened. so, no I do not believe that Jesus will physically return in my lifetime. Although, that does not mean that I would not be thrilled if he did.
Well, it is a popular belief that the world is going to end on Dec. 21, 2012. They came to that decision based on the Mayan calender that was split up into 23 decades (or something like that) and at the end of every cycle something bad happened to their civilization. After 23 cycles or whatever you want to call it, the Mayan civilization was destroyed and people think this was foreshadowing the end of the world, the end of our world. Based on their calender, at the end of every “cycle” something bad happened to our world, like wars and stuff. Basically, on that date will be the last day of the last cycle. So the world is going to end.
Oh, and the milky way galaxy is supposed to exactly line up with something ( I can’t remember what) on that exact date, spelling out total doom for us.
I don’t know if this is really going to happen. But, I guess we will find out on Dec. 21, 2012. It sucks that I won’t be able to graduate college though…
actually, yes (I’m in that camp)
@Atomic_emmcee - Just because Sarah Palin said something, doesn’t mean she meant it.
There seem little indication of that. The context of the quote doesn’t suggest a joke. Governor Palin probably had little reason to lie and paint herself a religious fantatic.
I know for a fact that religious beliefs can influence (some) people when it comes to voting, so she might very well have been lying.
Again, there is little indication to the contrary. There is no reason to assume that Governor Palin is a closet liberal Christain. If anything, note that the quotation was attributed to a time when she had little political gain from political posturing and pandering. This was all back in her Wasilla days.
Even if she was telling the truth, people should not call her crazy for it. Many people believe what is written in the bible, and I do not think that’s enough to make someone a fool or a “nut” or whatever what you want to call her.
Nothing in the Bible dates the end of days to Sarah Palin’s lifetime.
Considering that there is still no proof that the bible isn’t true, she might be right.
It is impossible to prove that something doesn’t exist.
I met God when I did sugarcube LSD named doomsday earlier this summer.
Jesus was here, you dumbfucks missed it.
@WayoftheWolf - Are you wise? I know you’re cute, but are you WISE?
@In_Reason_I_Trust - *applauds* he really did come after you unprovoked. for shame. you did a good job defending yourself though.
@elegantphoto - The views of the liberals commenting here do not affect the future of our nation; her mingling her religious beliefs into our political system does.
@ProudToBeAChristianFruitcake - I’d be interested in learning more about this view. Any good sources I should check out?
It is possible, but I don’t know for sure. Some Christians (even non-Christians) think it may be very soon. I pray, I hope, and I wait and try to be ready every day as I seek to be Christ like through Him.
if mccain is elected he’ll die in office (sarah and her homemade salmon patties will make sure of that!) and the barracuda will be in charge.
i think that will be the final piece of the puzzle to begin the apocalypse, so yes, i do believe if she’s elected with mccain that she will see jesus; he’ll be the one riding the white horse and taking off her head with the flaming sword of justice, as he leads the angels of heaven against the evil of this world.
I don’t know. That’s her opinion and she’s entitled to it just as I am entitled to say I don’t know.
The progression of events of the past sixty years certainly gives one cause to wonder.
I used to, but not anymore. After my sister’s husband, a youth pastor, explained to me Revelations, I don’t believe He will come in my lifetime. Certain world events such as tsunamis or 9/11 aren’t a sign of the world ending right now. The first step before all the trumpets are supposed to sound or whatever is for the Bible to reach every part of the Earth. I still don’t see how that’s possible that it can since more and more people are being born everyday. So until the written Word does reach everybody and they accept it or deny it, I don’t think I’ll be seeing Jesus anytime soon. Anyway, that’s just what is supposed to happen. I don’t want any debate about this since me and God aren’t on very good terms at the moment.
Here’s a question: Why is he coming the judge the nations? Do you think that the gathering of nations judgments of Joel 3 and Matthew 25 are the same judgment?
Joel 3:2
I will gather all nations
Matthew 25:32
All the nations will be gathered before him
Joel 3:12
for there I will sit to judge all the nations on every side.
Matthew 25:31
he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory
Matthew 25:33
He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
Joel 3:2
There I will enter into judgment against them concerning my inheritance, my people Israel
Matthew 25:40
whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’
Matthew 25: 34
“Then the King will say to those
Joel 3:16
The Lord will also roar from Zion and utter His voice from Jerusalem
Matthew 25:35
I was a stranger and you invited me in
Joel 3:2
for they scattered my people among the nations
Matthew 25:34
“take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.”
Joel 3:18
In that day the mountains will drip new wine,
and the hills will flow with milk;
all the ravines of Judah will run with water.
A fountain will flow out of the LORD’s house
and will water the valley of acacias.
how can a woman who wants to be the v.p. envision an Obama presidency?
/dry.
@xthread - Thanks. He just saddens me. Did you check out the link I provided in one of the comments above? It’s an old entry in another site. If you check out the comments there, it is almost painful to read who silly he is, and how well articulated the responses by user NQBass7 are. Poor sap.
Everything I ever share as far as what I believe about the end times comes from three words, “It will happen.”
I’ve seen far too much of the Christian community become hateful and petty while arguing whether their interpretation of the end times is right for me to say any more than that. I think we as Christians have a hard enough time living out the parts of the bible we do understand that we don’t need to waste our time fighting over the parts none of us will understand fully until it happens.
I think many of those who have read this forget that all the disciples thought that Christ would be returning in their life times…
To sort out all the mess that has been created over the past decade, I hope Jesus comes, kicks ass, takes names.
I sure hope not. Love you, Jesus but I’d like to be long since dead and buried before your return.
Peace.
Nope…. not in our lifetime, But I do not interpret the Bible literaly either……
Palin is still quite stupid to me, this just put the cherry on the sundae
No. In my daughter’s lifetime? Yes.
I do think He’ll return to earth; I can only hope it will be in my lifetime. :]
I’m not Christian for starters but I think Palin is not right in the head. The only reason she was elected VP was so Mccain would have an edge over Obama. In all reality she’s just a puppet with a head full of air.
@huginn - I didn’t mean that she was joking. I just said it was a possibility. Perhaps, not likely, but still a possibility.
I also did not know that she said it before being in the election. A silly mistake on my part. Thanks for letting me know.
While I do know that the bible does not say Sarah Palin will see Jesus, it also said he would come back. A lot of people believe it. I’m just saying that not all these people are fools, so why would she be?
No, I don’t believe in zombies.
Well from the signs that the Bible has presented it has looked that way. Things are falling into place as they should some will say but hey i’m just an atheist who reads.
@xthread - Yes actually I do. If you want something in book form. Check out “The Apocalypse Code” by Hank Hannegraaf
If you want to read more about my particular beliefs. then go to my website and scroll down to the bottom of the page and click on “tags” then look through the tags on my site and click on “endtimes” and “revelation” and you will see some posts where I talk about Preterism. Make sure to read the comments and my response to the comments as I may answer questions there that you think of when reading my post.
@annadrummergirl - Matthew 10:23 says that the disciples would not even have gone through the towns of Israel before the Son Of Man returns. How is that possible if everyone is suppose to hear before Jesus returns?
@whataboutbahb - Yah, I put Renaissance instead of Enlightenment in a momentary lapse of thought there.
’The Bible’s prominence disappears, which is not surprising since the debate centered upon specific institutions about which the Bible has little to say.
This is true. But even the Enlightenment thinkers took their basis for their deistic ideologies from the Christian God in some degree. Locke borrowed from Lex Rex. Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin both attended church, supported Christian charities, promoted the Christian influence on American culture, and participated in its interaction with government.
I see more of the Enlightenment’s influence in France’s Revolution and ideology- capitulated in their slogan “No God and No King.” They- as many of the Enlightenment thinkers desired- actually did seek to cut Christianity out of the picture (they went so far as to change the calendar to 3- 10 day weeks to obliterate the Lord’s Day)- and it was a bloody mess of a revolution from start to finish because they embraced Enlightement ideology and Robespiere’s regime. America’s and England’s revolutions were much less messyu- in fact, England’s is called the bloodless revolution- because their starting point was religious freedom of the order that the Reformation brought.
Consider the set up of our government:
our legislature is called “Congress.” Why congress of all words we could use? Congress is the short form of congregation- derived from the same word churches use. Congregational churches have a similar setup of government body as the Congress does. Our framers chose Congress over legislature and parliament. They also instituted and regularly practiced prayer before each session began- a practice they still follow to this day- to the Christian God. Ben Franklin himself was known for exhorting the Continental Congress to pray when things got heated.
The Constitution did not need to include Scriptural references because they weren’t looking to create a theocracy- nonetheless the influence of Christian thought and virtue can be found in our founding documents and in our laws and in our court decisions.
Consider the unanimous court decision of “Holy Trinity vs The United States of America” in which the Supreme Court ruled that America was in fact a Christian nation- citing 87 of an abundant number of documents in its decision.
I appreciate your conversational and respectful manner of interaction. I can’t say the same for others on here. God bless:)
Meh, He will come when He’s ready. Today, tomorrow, 1000 years from now. I’m willing to wait on his time. If it goes down like it says in the bible though, I’d like to see it, because it will be awesome
@In_Reason_I_Trust - First off, I am a female- I would have hoped you’d have the intelligence to figure that out by now.
Second you have not defeated my argument and that justfies my demand for proof which you have replaced with belittlements and isults becoming of a coward.
Third, you are igoring or distorting what I have supplied as if what I have to say (even though I am quoting things from first hand sources which would make them remiss of “historical revisionism”- if you want to see historical revisionism, read a high school or college history text) so this shows you are insecure with handling competing data.
As to the issue of atheistic ideals lacking a foundation for morality:
1. you’ve yet to supply me with any reason in the affirmative- any basis- any code of ethic that demonstrates the foundation of morality you atheists claim to have… please supply.
2. The majority of atheists in this day and age are post-modern in their thinking. Post-modernism is a self-defeating ideology that denies ultimate truth. This is no basis whatsoever for morality or right judgment- because there is no basis for deciding what is right and what is wrong since it denies absolutes. Again what foundation do atheists have for deciding what is right and what is wrong?
Insulting me does not answer my questions.
You are a poor sport and I am done until you can behave like the intelligent human being you claim to be.
@whataboutbahb - my apologies- that was not for you… it was for the other person who insists on resorting to insults and whining rather than having an intelligent conversation…
In the word it doesn’t say when exactly but goodness I sure hope it is soon!!
yes. But point is NOT that. Point is, will he find faith on earth? i hope to be doing a prep in the world of kindness….
@ProudToBeAChristianFruitcake - Remember me writing “I don’t want any debate about this…”? It means I didn’t want a debate about it which meant that I didn’t want anyone to reply. So please don’t reply.
@xthread - Well, you’re a voter, (I assume, especially if you are a citizen of this country.) and that means you can influence our political system; you can also write our senators and House representatives to express your opinions and concerns about bills, laws, concerns in the political arena–afterall you are their constituant…so do you want the rest of America to tell you whether your religious views are justified or not and tell you you can’t vote because someone thinks your religious views are ludacrist? Just a Thought…
Don’t worry, I’m not trying to rag on the liberals who may comment on this site, but I do know it is one thing that Liberals in general really speak out about, so I assume they would support the freedom of ALL personal religious views…whether it is Islam, Judiasm, Wikka, or Christianity.
Do we want to allow someone who thinks the end times are upon us in control of our military?
Ever hear of suicide bombers? Christianity and Islam are both Abrahamist traditions and just as easily serving of delusions of grandeur.
But if someone actually believes the end times are upon us, will they think it’s dangerous to launch off nukes and make it happen a few years early?
Well, I don’t think anybody can know that, obviously.
And I always feel pretty uneducated making opinions about things that are completely impossible to guess.
So I guess my answer is, I have no clue.
All that matters to 90% of men in this country is the reminder that Sarah Palin makes 40+ look hot…I mean, really hot.
*ahem*
@PreciousOnyx -
“I see more of the Enlightenment’s influence
in France’s Revolution and ideology- capitulated in their slogan “No
God and No King.” They- as many of the Enlightenment thinkers desired-
actually did seek to cut Christianity out of the picture (they went so
far as to change the calendar to 3- 10 day weeks to obliterate the
Lord’s Day)- and it was a bloody mess of a revolution from start to
finish because they embraced Enlightement ideology and Robespiere’s
regime. America’s and England’s revolutions were much less messyu- in
fact, England’s is called the bloodless revolution- because their
starting point was religious freedom of the order that the Reformation
brought.”
Sorry, but trying to make the French Revolution seem to be more based in a revolution based mainly in anti-God principles derived from an Enlightenment influence really just doesn’t work based of what we know of history. And if you are trying to make a comparison of France’s attempt to achieve democracy, and the English transition, comparing the French Revolution to the Glorious Revolution is not really comparable. The Glorious Revolution was not a social uprising attempting to achieve democracy, rather the invasion of England by a foreign army and an outside ruler gaining control of the throne. True, this was probably the first beginnings of democracy in England (and the birth of the Bill of Rights and the end to absolute monarchy), but it had nothing to do with religion, rather international politics. And the term Bloodless Revolution is somewhat of a misleading one, since there was battles fought (between armies, not peasants and aristocracy like the beginning of the French Revolution).
Also the majority of influential political theorists during the Enlightenment were not atheists, or at least they were not self-declared atheists (Spinoza comes the closest, but he would be considered pre-enlightenment by most, and was more of a pantheist than an atheist, though back then it was basically considered the same thing). If you look at British’s government evolution into a democratic state that took place post-french revolution, it can be seen as a government learning from the mistakes of other countries and not going the way of France with broad sweeping changes, rather the British way to democracy was a slow and steady process, with many of the british great thinkers and leaders terrified of what had happened in France. Religion once again did not play a significant role in this, it was merely observing the mistakes of the past.
“and it was a bloody mess of a revolution from start to finish because they embraced Enlightement ideology”
Part of the reason the French Revolution was a bloody mess was because the French government was doing a horrible job trying to adress the greivances of the people which began the whole thing, and then you had semi-intellectuals twisting Rosseua’s political theory (who am not particularly fond of, but I have my doubts he would have approved of much that went on in the Reign of Terror) and the uneduacated eating every word they said up. The French Revolution was nothing close to an actual embracement of the vast majority of the Enlightenment ideology. They might have plucked ideas here or there to support their causes, but it had mostly very much to do with a very repressed peasant population that got fed up and starting killing the aristocracy. The reason why the forming of the U.S. government displays some of the greatest endorsement of Enlightment thought was because there was little currently in place structure wise, so certain democratic ideas could be embraced thoroughly (unlike in European countries were there were the form of government was a monarchy and changes had to be made in increments).
“This is true. But even the
Enlightenment thinkers took their basis for their deistic ideologies
from the Christian God in some degree. Locke borrowed from Lex Rex.
Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin both attended church, supported
Christian charities, promoted the Christian influence on American
culture, and participated in its interaction with government.”
Of course christianity had an influence, I said that before. It did not have a major role though in how our structure of government was formed though, which was my point. OT authors have very little to contribute in how a democratic government should be formed.
“Consider the unanimous court decision
of “Holy Trinity vs The United States of America” in which the Supreme
Court ruled that America was in fact a Christian nation- citing 87 of
an abundant number of documents in its decision.”
I was a little confused at first when I saw this since I had just studied this S.C. case a few months ago in a States and Legal Systems class. And we studied it not because of the religious implications it had, or anything involving the separation of church and state. You know why it was a case studied in class? It is a good example of legislators screwing up a bill with poor or too broad of wording that results in the bill (or in this case I think it was a bill that changed U.S. code) and an example of why the intent of legislators should be considered by judges rather then strict textualism. Here’s the backstory from what I remember- A bill was written in the spirit of protectionism, mainly having to do with the vast influx of I think chinese immigration workers coming in at the time. But legislators made the wording much too broad. Instead of defining immigrate workers along the lines of unskilled laborer (which is what they intended to do), the broad meaning let the Bill apply to many other people. One of these people was a minister from England who was being hired by a church in New York. The main research done by the S.C. in this case was looking at legislation writings, records of the bill debates, and so forth to try and decipher the intent of the writers of the bill. This was the holding of the case. That the intent of the legislators was for this bill to apply to unskilled workers, and not to eduacted skilled professionals, and thus the erred is saying that the New York church broke the statute. This was all that we even discussed in class, since this was the important part of the case. What you brought up was dicta (which does not hold any sort of precedent, though it has the potential to be persuasive) that that was included in the majority opinion written by Brewer. Intent of the the writers of the bill was the backbone of the arguement, but Brewer adds two seperate arguements, two provide even more reasons. First he states “beyond
all these matters no purpose of action against religion can be imputed to
any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people.” Basically even if this bill did apply to skilled professionals, in this case it still wouldn’t apply since this is a religious matter, something the state or federal government shouldn’t be involved in. And then he procedes to give a little religous history of the U.S. and ends it with “These, and many other matters which might be
noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances
that this is a Christian nation.”- which basically is another follow up arguement that this is basically a christian nation, so even if the legislators wanted this bill to apply to skilled professionals, and even if the government was to get involved in religious matter, there is still no way the legislators could have intended for this bill to prevent a foriegn minister from coming and working here.
Basically, my point in the last paragraph was to show that this is not a court case about whether the U.S. is a christian nation at all. Whoever told you that is twisting truth in such a way it is close to breaking. It does include in the majority opinion the idea that the U.S. is a christian nation, and that is used as an arguement for the opinion. But it is important to note that arguement is not the main arguement in the opinion, and it is basically a back up arguement.
Here is the wording of the bill that lead to this in the first place btw:
“…person, company, partnership, or corporation, in any manner
whatsoever to prepay the transportation, or in any way assist or
encourage the importation or migration, of any alien or aliens, any
foreigner or foreigners, into the United States … under contract or
agreement … to perform labor or service of any kind in the United
States….”
This is more an example of how legislators should spend more time crafting bills and providing specific wording (which many times they’re loathe to do because of pontential political implications. A lot of times many politicians are fine with vague wording they have to know will end for a court deciding because it protects them politically from attaching themselves to spefic wording that is bound to offend or anger some group or another) rather than that of a religious issue.
God this comment is too long. Sorry for the long read. If any of it was unclear or mistakes were made forgive me, I don’t have the time to go back over it and make sure I said everything I wanted to see in as clear of a way as possible.
@whataboutbahb - well, thank you for the clarification.
@BeKa28 - It was her choice to take her family out on stage. The second you put those children out in front of your audience and put them level to you and your PRESIDENTIAL running mate, you are opening them up to the criticisms that come with being a part of the campaign. They did not have to be on stage at the RNC. She chose to put them there. She chose to parade her daughter’s pregnancy on stage (albeit with her fiancee) and chose to hold little baby Trig up to the crowd.
If she didn’t want to put them in the spotlight, she didn’t have to. They will make news, but not nearly as often as if you put them out there and invite the media to take shots at them.
Haven’t heard much about Obama’s daughters, and I owe that to the fact that he doesn’t bring them around when he’s campaigning, and bring that up on stage with him. You may have a different opinion, but that’s what I think.
She chose to equate her “family morals” with a family that she’s proud to show off to the world, but that comes with the price of that family she’s showing off being criticized.
I believe I will see Jesus on my way to Whoville for green eggs and ham.