The Great Reckoning

a reply to: BrucellaOrchitis

My GF thinks I'm crazy for buying all these guns but she mellowed a bit when I bought her a cute little pink Glock 48.

Yeah, we're paranoid AF.

a reply to: BrucellaOrchitis

What I have been hearing is that 30% American are to all intents and purposes attempting to bring about apocalyptic events on the basis of some deluded belief that this is what Jesus wants and that all the blood shed that they commit will ensure that they get raptured, or whatever.

I think there are a lot more Christian Nationalist than 30%...I'm buying more firepower in case it comes to that... Im paranoid AF!! But exercising my 2nd amendment rights makes me feel a little more prepared for what I see as "the great cleansing" that's coming out of some pastors mouths.

news.sky.com...

originally posted by: lilzazz
a reply to: mysterioustranger

He's already been anointed by God; to some trump is a Christ like figure with a heavenly dispensation to do the heavenly fathers work. It's not just politics anymore....

It never was. And it's not exclusive to the political 'right' either. For example, in the previous century, the booklet Church and Powers published by the French Protestant Federation makes this comment about the historical relationship of religion and politics:

“The undeniable fact is that in the political field, the organized church has more often than not been directed, willingly or unwillingly, toward two extremes: either it has claimed, sometimes by force, authority over the political powers, . . . [or] it has accepted to be the principal agent, accomplice or silent witness of an unjust social order.”

However, Catholic archbishop Marcos G. McGrath of Panama said this was no longer universally true: “The old concept of a church as a parallel structure to the secular power, and sometimes identified with it, is rapidly changing.”

Under the banner of “helping the poor,” “relevance” and “social justice,” an increasing number of the clergy were taking a new direction. Radical social and political criticism replacing their traditional progovernment stance. They urged the rank and file to take an active part in politics, even encouraging them to do so with the “leftist” socialist elements.

In May of 1971, Pope Paul VI made public a seventy-page “apostolic letter” sent to Cardinal Roy, archbishop of Quebec. Regarding the Catholic view of politics, it says:

“It rests with Christian communities to analyze objectively . . . which choices and commitments should properly be made in order to bring about the social, political and economic changes that prove to be necessary and often urgent. . . . It is the Christian’s duty to take part in this research and in the organization and life of political society.”

What is the pope telling his subjects to do? In a front-page editorial headed “Paul VI, Christians and Politics,” the Paris daily Le Monde drew the conclusion: “There can be no mistaking; this is a true pontifical document, carefully prepared, that could have as its title: ‘Christians Brought into Social and Political Life.’”

How far might a sincere Catholic go to bring about ‘urgent political changes’? Can he participate in the previously condemned “left,” the socialist or Communist movements? These are often the ones most actively promoting “social, political and economic changes.” In answer, the letter continues:

“Today, some Christians are drawn to socialist trends. . . . [acute discernment] will enable Christians to see to what extent they can commit themselves to follow that road. . . . One is obliged to recognize that a variety of legitimate [political] choices are possible.”​—Le Monde, May 15, 1971.

The left-wing Italian newspapers, Stampa and Avanti, noted from this that Pope Paul now allowed Catholics to cooperate with certain forms of socialism. Gabriel Matagrin, bishop of Grenoble, France, went still farther, stating: “Nowhere does the letter state that it is impossible for a Christian to be a communist or for a communist to be a Christian.”​—Annecy Catholique, October 1971.

The 136 French bishops assembled at Lourdes in October of 1972 lent their voices to the growing chorus. A long report entitled “For a Christian Practice of Politics” emerged. Quoting from this, the Catholic journal America shows the extent of political participation recommended for the faithful by these bishops:

“Certain imperatives clearly emerge for one who takes the Word of God seriously: ‘respect for the poor, defense of the weak, . . . overthrow of totalitarian powers.’ The Gospel is not neutral about such matters, and those who are witnesses of the Gospel ‘may be led to interventions in political matters that will astonish some.’”​—November 18, 1972.

Clergymen in many parts of the world have taken to this view of the “Gospel” with fervor. Does this report from United Press International “astonish” you?

“In Latin America the Roman Catholic Church is something unto itself. And in much of it, radical Catholicism and Castro-style Communism go hand in hand under the slogan: ‘Viva Christ. Viva Marx.’ . . . Theirs are not the plaster saints of traditional Catholic piety, but angry flesh and blood figures of the recent past​—Ernesto ‘Che’ Guevara and the Rev. Camilo Torres, a Colombia guerrilla priest.”​—The Jersey Journal, April 20, 1973.

A report in the magazine Latin America also notes high-level political activity. It says that three archbishops and ten bishops in Brazil’s northeast with “a reputation for being ‘left-wing’” recently issued a “blistering attack on the government and all its works.” The report continues:

“Such a development could hardly have occurred, in the view of many observers, without the green light from the Vatican . . . Furthermore, the declaration of 6 May appears to show that, in contrast with its previous policy, the Church is no longer afraid of stepping into the political arena.”​—May 25, 1973.

Do you find it difficult to relate such activity to the “Gospel”? Many do. Yet many Protestant leaders have also taken a similar stance toward politics.

Shortly after the Catholic bishops met at Lourdes, the French Protestant Federation held its triennial assembly. Le Monde headlined its long report on the meeting: “Politics the Crux of the Discussions.” The previously quoted booklet, Church and Powers, was used as a basis. Concerning a Christian’s political outlook, the booklet says:

“A number of theological trends generally known among the French Protestant public, particularly the young, point out that in the face of recognized social injustice, love of neighbor requires definite commitment in the world, . . . and personal ‘involvement in politics.’”

This “personal ‘involvement in politics’” could go to the point of “revolutionary rebellion,” say the Protestant leaders.

In the same vein, General Secretary of the World Council of Churches, Philip Potter, told Berkeley, California, seminarians and faculty:

“The role of theology is to be an agent of change​—with a refusal to be caught by what is! . . . Revolution and violence is admittedly dangerous. But didn’t Easter bring the promise of revolution?”​—San Francisco Examiner, June 11, 1973.

The World Council and other Protestant bodies have been strongly criticized for making large financial contributions to revolutionaries and “being obsessed with political and social issues.”​—New York Times, August 29, 1973.

Of course, not all clergy and laity were in agreement with the foregoing activities. But the fact is that there was a growing trend of religion in radical politics, and that fact is worthy of note.

As previously noted, throughout history political leaders could usually count on full support from clergymen. Now, after all these hundreds of years, why is their position changing?

Notice what the Catholic publication America suggests as a reason. One article refers to a “‘gathering storm’ in the Protestant Churches as the ministers who have serious doubts about basic theological doctrines try to engage their parishioners in social action programs.” (September 1, 1973; italics added.) A similar reason is given for Catholic political activity: “Many priests and nuns have abandoned their role as preachers of a meaning-system (called ‘the gospel’), and are seeking ‘relevance’ . . . in radical political activity, which may (or may not) be a consequence of faith, but is certainly no substitute for it.”​—October 28, 1972.

That is the crux of the matter, is it not? “Serious doubts” and lack of faith in the gospel’s “relevance” are driving many clergymen to look for “meaning” elsewhere. Without faith in the “gospel” or “good news” of God’s Kingdom for the blessing of mankind, they believe that reform has to come by human political means. As Richard J. Mouw, writing in The Christian Century magazine, put it:

“God has chosen to call apart a people as his instrument for bringing in his Kingdom . . . the redemption of the world is, among other things, a political redemption. . . . The political sphere is not merely an area in which a Christian can be a witness; it is one in which we are called to proclaim the liberating power of the gospel.”​—December 27, 1972.

Yet the “gospel” referred to in the Bible is about God’s heavenly kingdom that will rule the earth, not an earthly, political one set up by men. (Matt. 9:35; 10:7) That is why Jesus said, “Mine is not a kingdom of this world,” and of those truly serving him, “My choice withdrew you from the world.” (John 18:36; 15:19, Catholic Jerusalem Bible) Jesus’ words agree with what the prophet Daniel had said long before. Not men, but “the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be brought to ruin.” As for humans being the ones to run it, Daniel’s inspired prophecy says it “will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms.”​—Dan. 2:44.

Do religious leaders believe in the separateness of God’s heavenly kingdom? No! The booklet Church and Powers counters the Bible’s plain position on this matter by saying that “these relations [between Church and State] have been based on a narrow-minded reading of the Scriptures that separate the two realms.” What do they offer sincere persons to replace this so-called “narrow-minded reading of the Scriptures”?

Is it not just another brand of politics and revolution engineered by men? Though they realize the futility of their former faithless course as the “principal agent, accomplice or silent witness of an unjust social order,” are they now turning in faith to God? More important, are they instilling in sincere churchgoers faith in the gospel about God’s kingdom, which is their greatest responsibility? The record plainly answers, No.

a reply to: whereislogic

Thank you for that....

It's just a matter of time until we see Evangelicals marching down mainstreet....carrying guns and singing "Onward Christian Soldiers" looking for political "heretics" and dispensing sanctified justice. There's also a negative side!!!

a reply to: lilzazz
Holy crap you lead a rich fantasy life.

LOL

originally posted by: underpass61
a reply to: lilzazz
Holy crap you lead a rich fantasy life.

LOL

Yeah, you right...Ever watch "Breaking Bad" or "Better Call Saul"

a reply to: lilzazz

Nope

originally posted by: lilzazz
I think there are a lot more Christian Nationalist than 30%...I'm buying more firepower in case it comes to that... Im paranoid AF!! But exercising my 2nd amendment rights makes me feel a little more prepared for what I see as "the great cleansing" that's coming out of some pastors mouths.

I watched a documentary film recently, Praying for Armageddon and there was this preacher, a reformed biker or some such, and he is talking about the battle that'll accompany the second-coming. And he has this whole spiel about how his automatic rifle is roughly speaking, going to be an instrument of "God".

They're not shy about it, not one bit and they're no less fundamental about this belief than any other fundamentalist.

It'd be funny, darkly, if it wasn't then interspersed by all these state representatives, lobbyists and what-not who while a lot less explicit, aren't anywhere near denying that that is where their beliefs lie too.

All of them though, the very different factions that have united to get Trump elected, have not been shy. We have years of interviews, biographies, missions statements, lol. They have far from kept any of it secret. Any of it.

And, since there doesn't seem to be a unifying objective beyond getting the man himself elected and a vague promise of MAGA (when was, is it considered, that America was last great?), I kind of think there is going to have to be some version of the Night of the Long Knives, figuratively speaking, sooner or later.

I always like to give people the benefit of the doubt, maybe Trump is everything his supporters think he is and he can hold the centre, achieve the compromises required.

I mean, stranger things have happened right?

a reply to: BrucellaOrchitis



Right, I don't give anyone benefit of the doubt when it's CULTISM pure and simple. I'm buying much more fire power.
I'd rather go out in a blaze of glory than live under Project 25 theocracy!

a reply to: lilzazz

Be very afraid - he's comin fo yo azzzzz....

originally posted by: lilzazz
...
Yeah, we're paranoid AF.

Stop listening to prophets of doom.

Build a small off-grid hutch on the back of that acreage that you used to brag about.

Go sleep there once a week, with no electronics.

Wake-up with the birds, in sweet nature.

Tunes for you cowboy :




Cowboy Junkies - "All That Reckoning"

a reply to: lilzazz

You know, there is a chance, however slim, that Trump recruits some of the best minds available and then, and I know this is the tricky bit, actually listens to them and gains an actual understanding of what progress looks like given the current position. He hasn't displayed any particular grip on a wider reality, but I would like to presume that he comprehends that shutting the door on problems doesn't make those problems go away.

Paranoia, even if they are out to get you, is not conducive to good health, and besides the best revenge is always to live long and well. I'd perhaps be more inclined to extend your human connections rather than your arsenal.

originally posted by: BrucellaOrchitis
a reply to: lilzazz

You know, there is a chance, however slim, that Trump recruits some of the best minds available and then, and I know this is the tricky bit, actually listens to them and gains an actual understanding of what progress looks like given the current position. He hasn't displayed any particular grip on a wider reality, but I would like to presume that he comprehends that shutting the door on problems doesn't make those problems go away.

Paranoia, even if they are out to get you, is not conducive to good health, and besides the best revenge is always to live long and well. I'd perhaps be more inclined to extend your human connections rather than your arsenal.

Logically, I know all of that but military training is a constant.

a reply to: lilzazz

archive.org...

originally posted by: VariedcodeSole
Donald Trump has been president-elect for not even two days and:

• Hamas calls for an end to the war in the middle east


• Putin said he's ready to work towards peace

The first one is not a recent thing and the second reminds me of the Munich conference of 1938.

a reply to: BasicResearchMethods

That's why you're not in charge.