 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Why are certain forms of Christianity so scared of nation working
together cooperatively (i.e. a single world government)?
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why are certain forms of Christianity so scared of nation working
> together cooperatively (i.e. a single world government)?
Read John's Apocalypsis, particularly the sections about the Big Bad Beast
apparently conspiring to unite all nations against God's Good Guys.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> Read John's Apocalypsis, particularly the sections about the Big Bad Beast
> apparently conspiring to unite all nations against God's Good Guys.
Er, right... because we can't have all nations uniting to bring world
peace, or something like that. It just doesn't make sense that the
altruistic goal of peacful unity could be considered evil.
I realise, of course, that world peace is improbable, we as humans will
always have something to squabble about.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> Why are certain forms of Christianity so scared of nation working
> together cooperatively (i.e. a single world government)?
Do you want the religious answer or the political answer?
This would be a blow to future domination of the world by Christianity
unless the single world government was a Christian theocracy, which looks
unlikely right now.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> because we can't have all nations uniting to bring world peace,
No, because that's not God's will. Obviously.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Mike Raiford wrote:
>> because we can't have all nations uniting to bring world peace,
>
> No, because that's not God's will. Obviously.
>
So... God would prefer his favored creation to be divided into factions,
fight and squabbling, with a good deal of killing eachother, than a
harmonious planet were we get along?
Oh, yeah, there was that whole tower of babel thing..
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> I realise, of course, that world peace is improbable, we as humans will
> always have something to squabble about.
As soon as you have more than two people in the world, you need a third:
a lawyer.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote:
> clipka wrote:
>
> > Read John's Apocalypsis, particularly the sections about the Big Bad Beast
> > apparently conspiring to unite all nations against God's Good Guys.
>
> Er, right... because we can't have all nations uniting to bring world
> peace, or something like that. It just doesn't make sense that the
> altruistic goal of peacful unity could be considered evil.
>
> I realise, of course, that world peace is improbable, we as humans will
> always have something to squabble about.
That's not the way those particular type of christians you were talking about
are thinking.
They do interpret John's Apocalypsis to be a prophecy, and they expect things to
happen as described there (or as they read them to be described there).
This, most particularly, includes a world-wide government by the bad guys
persecuting God's chosen ones; only after that most glorious battle at
Harmagedon would this be overthrown, and replaced by another world-wide
government of the Messiah himself.
So whatever first world-wide government there would ever be, according to
fundamental christian's interpretation of the bible, those must be the bad guys
mentioned in John's Apocalypsis.
That's the answer to your question. Not my invention, so don't shoot the
messenger.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmail com> wrote:
> As soon as you have more than two people in the world, you need a third:
> a lawyer.
I'd prefer a judge...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> This, most particularly, includes a world-wide government by the bad guys
> persecuting God's chosen ones; only after that most glorious battle at
> Harmagedon would this be overthrown, and replaced by another world-wide
> government of the Messiah himself.
Then, if the end result is a world-wide government of the Messiah, why
wouldn't they welcome this, instead of fear it? Sure, things will be
tough, and an epic battle will be unpleasant, but the final result is
positive, right?
> That's the answer to your question. Not my invention, so don't shoot the
> messenger.
Never ;) No, I fully understand that. I just don't fully understand the
rampant paranoia by certain sects of the religion...
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
