the important creed that you're talking about amounts to "won't it be great when Christ comes again and establishes his kingdom on earth as well" There sin't anything in there about Christians being expected to take anyone over. We're expected to tell people about the faith.

The authority that you're talking about is Christ's not his followers. His followers are simply not being told to take over the world. Were being told to baptize not conquer. Christ's authority doesn't mean that any of us have it. The most important authority that he gave the apostles was the ability to forgive sins, and he said that very clearly.

Did you guys know that Jesus was bald? It's actually true, they did DNA tests on the true cross and the dude was definitely a cue-ball.

His followers are told to make disciples of and convert all nations. That's taking over the world. Whether that process is violent or not, is not said, but it's definitely a call for taking over the world and making its political structures Christian. And from other verses, namely the one where Jesus says he came to bring a sword and not peace (and to turn family members against each other), and his repeated claims that his second coming would come within his own disciples lifetime, the idea that this a longterm project of world conversion via passive persuasion is not credible.

Christians aim for a world dominion under Jesus's rule. No amount of madlibs midrashing will change the very clear statements to that effect.

" It may be an acknowledgement of God's superiority, but there is no indication that I know what his will is, nor is there anything implicitly stating that anyone is expected to subjugate anyone in the process of making that one come about."

Thy kingdom come is stated in the same sentence. It's a sentence which says that Christ's kingdom will be established on earth. That's a political goal. I don't know why we get all this handwaiving about how establishing a world kingdom and taking over nations isn't political.

just want to throw something in. If God CREATED the world, and the Christian faith is true (which i believe it is) then why can't God rule the world? You make it sound like a bad thing that people are spreading a religion which teaches people to love each other and be good.

Nigee, you have the right to post anything you like. Absolutely. I've been a little short, having had a busy finals week and two graduations to attend--and my grades still aren't done. So if I've been grumpy, well, it's because I've been grumpy. ;-)

Putin, "My kingdom is not of this world" shows that Jesus didn't come to take over--He came to tell people how to be born again, and he paid their ticket into heaven. "In the world you will have tribulation, but be of good cheer, for I have overcome the world." That's past tense, meaning that Jesus' work is done and that we now have a viable path to heaven. I'm with the Crazy Anglican dude--Sure, we're looking forward to the day that Jesus comes in glory, but until then, it's not our calling to try to control anything. The closest Christians come to that is for individuals to try to get into positions in government where they can influence the course of events by making moral decisions.

Putin and Player, in case you hadn't noticed, this post isn't about defending religion per se, as if all religions were paths to God. Christians (those who believe what Jesus said) believe Jesus when he said "No man comes to the father but by me." Christianity is not a system of works that leads to rewards in heaven, which is one common definition of a religion. Christianity is not the poster-boy for religion, and Jesus had a lot to say about those religious attitudes, as in today's reading (or was it yesterday's?).

One of the local Christian churches where I recently attended a funeral makes no bones that a religion is just a cultural thing, and if your area believes something different, then that's right for you. That all sounds nice and friendly, unless you realize that God is God, he makes himself known to us, and while the expression of worship is different in different cultures, the truth of the cross is the same across all the world, as per Putin's quote of the Bible passage.

This thread is not about Mormonism, except that its teachings are definitely not Biblical, because they deny the validity of today's Bible translations. One Nation Under Gods is a great book that can be ordered at local libraries for those who are interested in the true history of Mormonism, or the Latter Day Saints, as they call themselves.

Fortress, my personal opinion is that if you make Christianity the official religion, you get people who profess that religion in order to get ahead politically. That happened when the Emperor Constantine professed Christianity at age 40 (even though he wasn't baptized until his deathbed, and retained the title of pontifex--supreme priest--of the pagan religions, and was portrayed wearing the Apollonian sun diadem, and etc. He was a syncretist to a large extent.). As a result of his announced conversion, though, many senators and government officials converted with him--and surely many were not sincere. So I see the mixing of religion and government as a danger, although it's also dangerous when a government does not allow free expression of religion. The U.S. Constitution guarantees free expression of religion, just not the establishment of any official religion--but today, many atheists and a few others are fighting for "freedom from religion" and want to eradicate any religious expression from public land, even (I suppose) pagan centers such as the one at the Air Force Academy.

i did not say i was agaisnt freedom of religion and such, I largely support it. All i was saying if that Putin seemed to be saying it was wrong for God to rule the world, and that Christianity was somewhat evil

"That happened when the Emperor Constantine professed Christianity at age 40"

Constantine was a known Christian for nearly all of his life. He apparently had a vision of a cross during his conquests prior to becoming emperor, and was a devout Christian ever after.

"(even though he wasn't baptized until his deathbed, and retained the title of pontifex--supreme priest--of the pagan religions, and was portrayed wearing the Apollonian sun diadem, and etc. He was a syncretist to a large extent.). As a result of his announced conversion, though, many senators and government officials converted with him--and surely many were not sincere."

Most of this isn't true. It's true enough that I won't call you a liar, but it's also mostly untrue. His "baptism" doesn't mean much to the real world, just those fanatics who are actually that caught up in the trappings of mysticism. He was a Christian through and through for decades before that. Some of the aristocracy had already converted; some followed after him. Most didn't, however. Constantine didn't really care. That's also why he kept his titles. They were a recognized symbol of power - not necessarily one that he was a proponent of, but even without regard to the "supernatural" element, Constantine's pagan titles held sway over men.

Moreover, Constantinople was founded with the idea that it would be a "Christianized" Rome. Constantine did want to have a relatively homogeneous religious culture in Constantinople. Might even be he wanted it in Rome, but he recognized immediately he didn't have the clout the bring the aristocracy over en masse.

I don't really consider him a syncretist. Pragmatist would be a better descriptor, I think.

Christianity is evil, not just somewhat.

"until then, it's not our calling to try to control anything."

"The closest Christians come to that is for individuals to try to get into positions in government where they can influence the course of events by making moral decisions."

Do you really not see the inherent contradiction between these two thoughts? How can it not be completely obvious that your "moral influence" is a form of control that is widely considered abhorrent to nonbelievers?

Mujus, you make a very concise defense of the Atheist viewpoint in your above post. Freedom from religion means exactly that: In our public spaces, those which we as a people have chosen to set aside as communal land for all Americans, it is inappropriate to decorate them in the trappings of a belief system of a portion of the population. Whether that portion is a minority or the majority, it is inappropriate for American institutions to hold one of our multitude of belief systems as more deserving of representation than others. The government-funded pagan worship center at the Air Force Academy is just as much in violation of this ideal as a cross in a national park, a government-funded granite of the ten commandments in a federal courthouse, sanctioned prayer in public schools, or the income tax exemption enjoyed by the clergy. Conversely, it would be equally inappropriate for the government to dictate what can and cannot be presented in the private sector, whether that be on church grounds, parochial schools, in synagogue, a mosque, your backyard, whatever.

I would never dream of stepping into your church on a Sunday morning and preaching Charles Darwin or chanting the Moslem Adhan or singing a Greek Hymn to Aphrodite. In return, we simply ask the courtesy of allowing the "common good" to be just that. Common. To every American. Regardless of our beliefs.

"Freedom from religion means exactly that"

So it may, but where do you find the words "Freedom from religion" anywhere in the law or customs, I would ask?

The same spot where you find "freedom from science", which is apparently the doctrine used in many southern US high school curricula.

You actually involved in high schools down here in Dixie, Hamm? Or you just believe something you've read online? Because that's bullshit.

Hammour, it's brave of you to say that Constantine was a Christian all his life. In fact, he was in the court of Diocletian in 303 A.D., during the greatest persecution of Christians in Roman history, and would likely not have survived had he not publicly professed paganism. Yes, his mom was Christian, but we all know that doesn't make him Christian.

Further evidence is found on his coinage, which depicted first Mars and then the sun god, identified with Apollo, and in the oration published to legitimize his rule, which "...moves away from the religious ideology of the Tetrarchy, with its focus on twin dynasties of Jupiter and Hercules. Instead, the orator proclaims that Constantine experienced a divine vision of Apollo and Victory granting him laurel wreaths of health and a long reign. In the likeness of Apollo Constantine recognized himself as the saving figure to whom would be granted "rule of the whole world",[106] as the poet Virgil had once foretold.[107] The oration's religious shift is paralleled by a similar shift in Constantine's coinage. In his early reign, the coinage of Constantine advertised Mars as his patron. From 310 on, Mars was replaced by Sol Invictus, a god conventionally identified with Apollo.[108]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_the_Great
Somehow I don't think a Christian would mint coins showing other gods as his patrons.

Today's Bible reading is Luke 9, in which Jesus casts out demons, performs miracles, teaches the crowds and the disciples, and asks if his disciples know who he is.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Luk&c=9&v=1&t=NLT
"18 One day Jesus left the crowds to pray alone. Only his disciples were with him, and he asked them, “Who do people say I am?”
19 “Well,” they replied, “some say John the Baptist, some say Elijah, and others say you are one of the other ancient prophets risen from the dead.”
20 Then he asked them, “But who do you say I am?”
Peter replied, “You are the Messiah [fn4] sent from God!”

@semck83 It doesn't say that anywhere in our laws. Nor was my reply intimating that it did. I was responding to Mujus' post referencing the Freedom From Religion movement. Are you intimating that, since we have no laws requiring freedom from religion, a specific religion should receive precedence in our public life? If so, I'd recommend trying out Iran for awhile to try out the conditions. Or are you simply saying that religion of any sort should have free reign of expression in the public square? If that's the case, then there shouldn't be any objection to the pagan worship center at the Air Force Academy.

Yes, religion of any sort should be allowed to be expressed in the public square. That's what the freedom of religion clause is all about. Should there be limits? Yes, because we don't want our public lands covered with billboards proclaiming one religion or another. But to say that symbols or the message of "the dominant religion" is not allowed to be expressed on public land, but only in private, is the opposite of freedom of religion--The pilgrims had that much freedom in England!!

The pilgrims came to this country to establish religiously exclusive communes which showed no tolerance for opposing views. Rhode Island Colony (Providence Plantations) was founded by Roger Williams for the sole purpose of escaping religious persecution in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Likewise the Quakers were forced south to Pennsylvania due to religious persecution and lynching by the "pilgrims" of Massachusetts Bay. It wasn't until the Maryland Toleration Act of 1649 (created by the Catholic Lord Baltimore) that religious freedom was protected on these shores. However, this only extended to trinitarian Christians. Anyone denying the divinity of Jesus was still sentenced to death under the "Toleration" act. Of course, even it was revoked 6 years later by the Anglican William Claiborne under orders from Oliver Cromwell. There was a bit of back and forth for a few years and then it was permanently abolished in 1692 after which there were no laws on the books regarding religious freedom, acceptance, or even toleration until the First Amendment in 1791.

So, not to put too fine a point on it, the pilgrims and other original settlers of our country are not a good place to start when searching for a model of religious tolerance.

"Hammour, it's brave of you to say that Constantine was a Christian all his life. In fact, he was in the court of Diocletian in 303 A.D., during the greatest persecution of Christians in Roman history, and would likely not have survived had he not publicly professed paganism. Yes, his mom was Christian, but we all know that doesn't make him Christian."

Constantine and Diocletian had a great deal of distance between the two of them, until Constantine smashed Dio's armies. I can't find the book I've been reading at the moment, but I'm nearly positive Diocletian wasn't slaughtering Christians wholesale, he was moving against a particular heretical branch that had begun to rival "traditional" Christianity.

"If that's the case, then there shouldn't be any objection to the pagan worship center at the Air Force Academy."

I think that's completely fair. I'd also back their ability to assemble, if it's good for the goose; it's good for the gander.

Crazy, agreed! Hamm, I think you have it wrong. Constantine was basically a hostage in Diocletian's court while his father was one of two Caesars, independent but less august than the two emperors, all reigning at once over different parts of the Roman Empire, and Diocletian was the emperor who listened to his court and launched the greatest persecution of Christians in Roman times.
That said, the Roman Empire in the Fourth Century A.D. is an amazingly complex and interesting study.

OK sorry, Silvanus, I misunderstood you. I agree there is no problem with pagan worship at the AFA.

Lol the close minded Christians came out on the side of the pagans......awkwaaaarrrdd. :-)