On Rejecting the Spirit of Prophecy

(Kim Green) #61

lol…yes, I have heard that phrase used by a Canadian describing their own government! :wink:

(Patrick Travis) #62

I prefer “limited government” that our founders embraced in the Constitution.

(Kim Green) #63

What is one’s preference is now dictated by other people and their opinions. :slight_smile: There will be no turning back to the “good ole days”.

(Patrick Travis) #64

It is really what Hitler and Mussolini embraced as their model and American Progessives of the day totally agreed… before the bad stuff

(Kim Green) #65

There is no doubt that things in culture have changed…we are older and must let the next generations make their own mistakes now.

(Patrick Travis) #66

When one has children and grandchildren one has the responsibility to try to leave as good as one found it.

(Kim Green) #67

I will not debate this, but one must recognize that what we think and feel is “right” may not be accepted by others. Really, politics ends up being a sort of “religion” for many…

(Patrick Travis) #68

With out a doubt! That is why one can only hope to educate.

(Thomas J Zwemer) #69

Teddy Roosevelt cleaned up the big trusts. FDR took Teddy’s Progressive agenda into the New Deal. LBJ took it a bridge too far. Goldwater triedto back up too far. Now we have a ego based government that would get its own way or bust the republic.

(Sirje) #70

And how is that working out?


No Jim Wallis is a marxist because he says he is a marxist. that is why I quote him saying it.

(Kim Green) #72

Well…look to those who are before us. :slight_smile:

My best guess is that the US will be more or less like our Cousin to the North.

(Patrick Travis) #73

Tom, Indeed today special interest and the desire to get to the gov’t trough reigns supreme. De Toucqueville suggested that when people learned they could get to the public treasury that would be the end of the Republic.

(Patrick Travis) #74

@RonCorson @WFNoel
You guys might be interested in some of the religious roots of the present discussion.

The officiaI doctrine of the Roman Church is outlined in the encyclical Quadragesirno anno of Pope Pius XI (1931). The Anglo-Catholic doctrine is presented by the late William Temple, Archbishop of Canterbury, in the book Christianity and the Social Order (Penguin Special, 1942). Representative of the ideas of European continental Protestantism is the book of Emil Brunner, Justice and the Social Order, trans. by M. Hottinger (New York, 1945). A highly significant document is the section on “The Church 2nd Disorder of Society” of the draft report which the World Council of Churches in September, 1948 recommended for appropriate action to the one hundred and fifty odd denominations whose delegates are members of the Council. For the ideas of Nicolas Berdyaew, the most eminent apologist of Russian Orthodoxy, cf. his book The Origin of Russian Communism (London, 1937)~ especially pp. 217-2 18 and 225. It is often asserted that an essential difference between the Marxians and the other socialist and interventionist parties is to be found in the fact that the Marxians stand for class struggle, while the latter parties look at the class struggle as upon a deplorable outgrowth of the irreconcilable conflict of class interests inherent in capitalism-

Nothing new under the sun…

(Sirje) #75

Despite the same language, don’t forget that it was settled by the Loyalists, while the rebels stayed in the south to form a new government. It has bred a people who apologize if they cross your path with a carriage at the supermarket - a kinder gentler version of ourselves; but being taxed on taxes (several layers of it).

The problem in the US is that the schools are no longer teaching history; and you know what “they” say about that - Those who can’t remember the past are condemned to repeat it. Not only do we not remember the past, we make no attempt to learn it. I believe George Washington University near DC offers a history major without US History - figure that one out.

The first thing the Soviets did when they took over a country was to get rid of their history books, substituting them with their own version. Gone were statues and historical markers as well. Next to go was freedom of speech - no offensive language…Of course, someone had to define “offensive”. It’s a slippery slope.

(Kim Green) #76

It is a “slippery” slope…

Canada has been on a certain political/societal trajectory for a much longer time now. The US is just in its infancy (into some form of socialism) so we will probably are going to see some changes happen more slowly and manifest culturally differently.

People tend to take more notice of things that are important to them. Some of us remember the Draft and Viet Nam and the societal upheaval that it caused. We have more generations after us that do not remember having to deal with such changes and who embrace opposition of war at nearly any price. However, the price for some things will be paid out in other societal ways- not all pleasing.

Yes, “history”. There is no need to absolutely get rid of it but it can be greatly “revised” as well. I am not opposed to having the brutal truth (pro and con) come out about a great number of topics but if you are not taught “critical thinking” nothing else will matter. Will it? For that matter…it is an issue that I see within Adventism as well. I find religion and politics to often be bedfellows and demand similar blind adherence.


I wonder how many of of us in this forum are asking ourselves, "Lord, is it I?

(William Noel) #78

It is easy to distinguish between what is done in human power and what God does. Humans do things to gain power. “Social Justice” causes are promoted using public shaming and condemnation. That is followed by calls for legislation that invariably limit the liberties of some and taking from “the rich” to supposedly benefit “the poor” while only doing the former and making endless promises of the latter. “Social Justice” does not solve problems, it creates problems like identity politics where groups are defined and then pitted against each other where no conflict needs to exist. Perhaps worst of all, it conditions people to keep looking for the next supposed benefit they can receive so it promotes a sense of being entitled, which is nothing more than selfishness.

In contrast, the ministry Jesus modeled for us to practice is based on the immense love of the Father and is directed by the Holy Spirit. It’s objective is not improving society but drawing people into a loving relationship with God so they will be aware of the contrasts between good and evil and looking forward to the return of Jesus so they can be part of the Kingdom of God where there will be no sin or selfishness and our identity will not be based on who we contrast with but who has redeemed us.

(William Noel) #79

I generally agree. I think we sometimes confuse the topic by talking about the status of a prophet instead of the role God wants them to perform among His people. The role of a prophet is to deliver messages from God.

(William Noel) #80

Yes, Jesus knew that his ministry would change society. When enough people are of a certain opinion then society then things change. But the focus of Jesus was NOT on changing this world but changing people who are in it so they would come to love Him and be looking forward filled with the hope of life forever with Him but without sin.The focus of “social justice” causes fall short of that same objective and fail to draw attention to God as provider and savior. In fact, those causes often do great damage to the cause of God because they are presented as an alternate to God, or even work directly against faith.