Yaoi Huntress Earth Posted July 29, 2005 Share Posted July 29, 2005 I've noticed this twice so far, but for some reason I have a feeling this might be come a trend among fundies. The idea is that all leadership comes from God and since the bible is infailable, we should follow whatever our political leaders say and do because God put them there. The first time I heard of this, the televangelist said that even Hitler was appointed by God. But he also brought out that the American Revolution was an expection because when a leader (the British) is perverting his leadership, then it's ok to act against them. What the British did was terrible, but Hitler's reign was ten times worse and yet this guy makes an excuse for him. Probably didn't want the uber-partiots knocking down his doors. Has anyone else heard of this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spamandham Posted July 29, 2005 Share Posted July 29, 2005 I suspect this stems from the "give unto Caesar" bullshit. I'm not surprised though. The concept of separation of church and state is very recent, and will not survive without the widespread abandonment of faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yaoi Huntress Earth Posted July 29, 2005 Author Share Posted July 29, 2005 I suspect this stems from the "give unto Caesar" bullshit. I'm not surprised though. The concept of separation of church and state is very recent, and will not survive without the widespread abandonment of faith. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You're right about it deriveing from that line. It's a lack of logic which hurts the concept of Church and State. Many fundies have abandoned logic and have become the tools of the greedy and\or fanatical, because they don't stop to consider the dangers of their beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fweethawt Posted July 29, 2005 Share Posted July 29, 2005 Has anyone else heard of this? I've heard something similar. I've heard preachers (in America no less) biblically condemning the people who started this country because it (America) was started due to a direct rebellion against previous leaders. Of course you know that rebelling against your leaders is a very bad thing because God is the one who put them in charge in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlinfmct87 Posted July 29, 2005 Share Posted July 29, 2005 Yeah. I thought that line of thinking was a throwback to the monarchy way of thinking - that the rulers have power by the grace of God. Merlin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sonofspong Posted July 29, 2005 Share Posted July 29, 2005 This has always been one of my concerns with Christianity. I've heard countless times how prechers stress the importance of submitting to authority figures, and condem those (particularly teens) who display rebelious attitudes. They don't realize that blind faith and complete trust in athority is just a set up for tyranny; ALL men in power inevitable abuse it, especially when no one bothers to challenge them. And plus, that this great country was founded upon rebellion from authority figures. Some would say freedom from God and religion was an underlying theme, as well. (especially the catholic church; catholics weren't popular around here for many years) Go America!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whatifidontwantausername? Posted July 29, 2005 Share Posted July 29, 2005 I think, personaly, that this used to be one of the largest flaws that they had in doctrine's. Now that the Nationalist...erm... republican party is in office and the Christian Reich... right(My how clumsy my fingers are) is a major player in that party we are just a few years away from a fascist state. But, I could just be an alarmist and I hope I am wrong... for the children. -Jake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted July 29, 2005 Share Posted July 29, 2005 It seems as if they are fairly selective about which authority to pay hedence to. Reagan and Bush ok, Carter and Clinton, neh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythra Posted July 29, 2005 Share Posted July 29, 2005 Here is where they get the bulk of the idea from: Romans 13 Everyone must submit to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that are instituted by God. So then, the one who resists the authority is opposing God's command, and those who oppose it will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do good and you will have its approval. For government is god's servant to you for good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, because it does no carry the sword for no reason. For government is God's servant, an avenger that brings wrath on the one who does wrong. Therefore, you must submit, not only because of wrath, but also because of your conscience. And for this reason you pay taxes, since the authorities are God's public servants, continually attending to these tasks." The roman church was very tidy about keeping the sheep orderly. Can't have any of those damned insurrections going on. I bet Nivek is pretty proud of these passages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted July 29, 2005 Share Posted July 29, 2005 . . . I do believe that Christianity was perfectly formed by the powers that be to keep the masses in line. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I agree. The more I look at Christianity objectively, the more it becomes OBVIOUS that it was written to appease the Romans. (i.e. the Jews killed Jesus- not the Romans; it's good to pay taxes to Rome; god put Ceasar in power; keep your foreskins; etc.) I was blind but now I see... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ms. K Posted July 30, 2005 Share Posted July 30, 2005 It seems as if they are fairly selective about which authority to pay hedence to. Reagan and Bush ok, Carter and Clinton, neh! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, that's because Regan and Bush were/are good CHRISTIAN pResidents. Carter and Clinton? With all that lack of morality, and all that *gasp* SIN? They weren't good CHRISTIAN Presidents, they were HEATHENS! Jimmy Carter even admitted to having "lust in his heart"! And my God, look at those blow jobs in the Oval Office that Bill Clinton got, from a young woman that wasn't his wife! They don't have to pay any heed to Clinton, engaging in adultery, and sodomy, and they don't have to pay any heed to Carter, engaging in lust in his heart. They only have to pay attention to leaders they can PROVE have been Appointed By God. Sorry, I used to go to a fundie whackjob church. I've heard this line of argument before, and I shot it down then, too. Doesn't make you real popular with the fundie nutters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ nivek ♦ Posted July 30, 2005 Share Posted July 30, 2005 When it all comes down to the brass tacks of Life folks, it'll be you, your deeds, actions and objectives that mean shit to you.. I've not socially contracted my life away to anyone... The *leaders*, the people at one time you (gag, gagg, chuck furballs, puke) followed as mentors will not be there to *take the bullet* when it it that time. For the good folks in this life who need to be lead pasture to paddock and to the shearers, I salute them. The flockmasters and their sheep dogs are far too busy husbanding them to come hunt down and old wolf who wants left alone.. If it pans out there is some form of after this life judgement, then I'll prodly stand in front of whatever tribunal and let it/him/she/the paperboy know that I don't give a flying fuck what they think, as they weren't there to do anything for me when their help was sorely needed. I'll stand proudly on my feet rather than on my knees.. Even if they have the power to end this life.. Fukk'um.. I'd rather die than be your slave "Pokerface" Here is my tune for this discussion.. One of the best bands rockin' on the East Coast.. kevinL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brutal Brian Posted July 30, 2005 Share Posted July 30, 2005 I've noticed this twice so far, but for some reason I have a feeling this might be come a trend among fundies. The idea is that all leadership comes from God and since the bible is infailable, we should follow whatever our political leaders say and do because God put them there. The first time I heard of this, the televangelist said that even Hitler was appointed by God. But he also brought out that the American Revolution was an expection because when a leader (the British) is perverting his leadership, then it's ok to act against them. What the British did was terrible, but Hitler's reign was ten times worse and yet this guy makes an excuse for him. Probably didn't want the uber-partiots knocking down his doors. Has anyone else heard of this? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I think this picture best sums up your point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luck Mermaid Posted July 30, 2005 Share Posted July 30, 2005 I like the term, Same shit different dick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nirrti Posted July 30, 2005 Share Posted July 30, 2005 Funny....I was just watching a documentary about women in Hitlers Third Reich, today. They were expected, like everyone else to obey their superiors in the Nazi regime in addition to obedience to their husbands, spitting out as many babies as possible for the "good of Germany" and adhere to strong "family values." Couldn't help but think about the obvious parallels between Nazi ideals and motives of Christian conservatives. Let's just say watching archive footage of a genocidal regime with propaganda similar to our current government gave me this overpowering sense of foreboding that made me research Australia's immigration requirements. Why Australia? Because it's 8,000 miles and 15 time zones away, enough to be out of reach if Amerika starts its own blitzkreig on other nations......Oh wait! They've already started with Iraq! Oh well, too late. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whatifidontwantausername? Posted July 30, 2005 Share Posted July 30, 2005 Well they couldn't start with Canada could they? Too many people like them. -Jake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurisaz Posted July 30, 2005 Share Posted July 30, 2005 Funny....I was just watching a documentary about women in Hitlers Third Reich, today. They were expected, like everyone else to obey their superiors in the Nazi regime in addition to obedience to their husbands, spitting out as many babies as possible for the "good of Germany" and adhere to strong "family values." Couldn't help but think about the obvious parallels between Nazi ideals and motives of Christian conservatives. Striking, ain't it? And sickening too. Consider yourself invited to come to Europe (I would say Germany, but with our current situation I might be considered an arse if I said "come here"). At least you'll not die among fundie numbnuts when the 4th reich comes to "take us home". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
narcissist Posted July 30, 2005 Share Posted July 30, 2005 Why Australia? Because it's 8,000 miles and 15 time zones away, enough to be out of reach if Amerika starts its own blitzkreig on other nations......Oh wait! They've already started with Iraq! Oh well, too late. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I don't think you want to come to Australia. We are Amerika's deputy sheriff in the South Pacific, and our Prime Minister is right behind your President in Iraq - so much so that his nose has become very brown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Purple Rhino Posted July 30, 2005 Share Posted July 30, 2005 In politics and religion when the house of cards finally falls the supporters and followers alike can't backpeddle fast enough. Never forget PTL or Nixon ... very few today will admit to being duped PR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted July 30, 2005 Share Posted July 30, 2005 I agree. The more I look at Christianity objectively, the more it becomes OBVIOUS that it was written to appease the Romans. (i.e. the Jews killed Jesus- not the Romans; it's good to pay taxes to Rome; god put Ceasar in power; keep your foreskins; etc.) I was blind but now I see... This scholar actually had a bit different spin on it. He argued that parts of the new testament had been added in order to bolster or unite the occupied society in order to support a rebellion against the ruling Romans. The keep your foreskins and some of Jesus' parables, which included acceptance of non Jews were an attempt to bring everyone in under one tent. It's been a while since I read it, but it made sense at the time. Your argument makes a lot of sense also. I would guess that there were a lot of competing political factions motivated by a variety of needs appealing to the public at the time. The cannon process years later picked and chose from these writings perhaps not completely understanding their original intent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yaoi Huntress Earth Posted July 30, 2005 Author Share Posted July 30, 2005 When it all comes down to the brass tacks of Life folks, it'll be you, your deeds, actions and objectives that mean shit to you..I'd rather die than be your slave "Pokerface" Here is my tune for this discussion.. One of the best bands rockin' on the East Coast.. kevinL. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Thanks for recomending this band. They rock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kay Posted August 5, 2005 Share Posted August 5, 2005 I've heard countless times how prechers stress the importance of submitting to authority figures, and condem those (particularly teens) who display rebelious attitudes. Don't Christians realize that the root of social progress has always been through rebellion against established institutions? We Chinese bought the whole 'son-of-heaven' idea of the Emperors for several thousand years. However, when there was famine, floods and other natural disasters and whatnot, leaving devastation and massive loss of life, the peasants were entitled to interpret that as a sign of the Emperor losing the heaven's backing, thus allowing the old dynasty to be toppled and a new one to be established. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Godless Dave Posted August 5, 2005 Share Posted August 5, 2005 I've noticed this twice so far, but for some reason I have a feeling this might be come a trend among fundies. The idea is that all leadership comes from God and since the bible is infailable, we should follow whatever our political leaders say and do because God put them there. The first time I heard of this, the televangelist said that even Hitler was appointed by God. But he also brought out that the American Revolution was an expection because when a leader (the British) is perverting his leadership, then it's ok to act against them. What the British did was terrible, but Hitler's reign was ten times worse and yet this guy makes an excuse for him. Probably didn't want the uber-partiots knocking down his doors. Has anyone else heard of this? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Have I ever heard it? Are you kidding? That's what every king in Europe said during the Middle Ages. The Catholic Church backed them up. There was also a corollary that, because you are supposed to do what your "superiors" order you to, you are not guilty if they order you to do something immoral and you do it. The person giving the orders assumes all the guilt. So if your king orders you to slaughter a bunch of people you could do so without fear of hell, because even if the king was wrong it was his fault, not yours; you were "just following orders". The Christians didn't invent the idea either. Most rulers throughout history have claimed divine authority. Christianity got the idea from the Roman emperors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Priapus Posted August 8, 2005 Share Posted August 8, 2005 A fun one with a Fundy on another board I frequent went thus: Me: Gotta follow George the Younger why? Her: He's the lawful head of our nation and as such he's annointed by God. God wants us to obey the laws of our country and support the leaders. Me: So in the People's Republic of China, it's illegal to hold Christian Church services. Should recognize the legitimacy of that? You talk about how yer missionary pals have had secret undergound services there. Should that be treated like an Al Qaida cell in Brooklyn? Her: No because it's God' will that people spread His gospel. Me: So I guess the Islamic republics are pretty much a bust. I mean, what with the whole Mohammad thing. Her: That's a false teaching so yes. Me: So, God's ordained the government so long as they're ostensibly Christian, yes? Her: Yes. And these people have citizenship and voting rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Purple Rhino Posted August 8, 2005 Share Posted August 8, 2005 ...And these people have citizenship and voting rights. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sheep will be sheep! I just love the title of this thread PR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts