UN Like United Religions

[Thoughtful Monk]

I think the history of Christianity suggests that state-sponsored churches are not a good idea, but I don't want to derail your thread so I'll just leave this there.

Agreed and thank you.

[moreta]

Are you sure that the Scriptures teach an upcoming one-world-religion? I am confident talk of a movement like this will remain talk and never materialize. You would do well not to partake in this, you will only be wasting your time. Go make disciples, articulate the gospel, and a live a life characterized by good deeds and you will be on the right track.

Rev13
8 All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the Lamb’s book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world.
...
11 Then I saw a second beast, coming out of the earth. It had two horns like a lamb, but it spoke like a dragon. 12 It exercised all the authority of the first beast on its behalf, and made the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast, whose fatal wound had been healed. 13 And it performed great signs, even causing fire to come down from heaven to the earth in full view of the people. 14 Because of the signs it was given power to perform on behalf of the first beast, it deceived the inhabitants of the earth. It ordered them to set up an image in honor of the beast who was wounded by the sword and yet lived. 15 The second beast was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that the image could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed.

NIV

Now, when this actually happens kinda depends on where you stand with regard to the rapture and the tribulation. As a pre-trib rapturist (if such a term cam be used ) I believe that we may come close to a single world wide religion but that it won't become fully formed until after the rapture. I do not feel that an organization is needed, rather that all faiths individually rise up and condemn, with a multitude of voices, that violence in the name of Religion is not acceptable and will not be tolerated. Such condemnation would, in theory at least, be most effective coming from the people whose faith is being hijacked. Terrorists would be marginalized by their own people.

If you'll excuse me now, I will don my rose colored glasses.

[Scrawly]

NIV

Yes, I am aware of those verses. How do you find the interpretations of these verses by partial preterists and amillenialists?

Now, when this actually happens kinda depends on where you stand with regard to the rapture and the tribulation. As a pre-trib rapturist (if such a term cam be used ) I believe that we may come close to a single world wide religion but that it won't become fully formed until after the rapture. I do not feel that an organization is needed, rather that all faiths individually rise up and condemn, with a multitude of voices, that violence in the name of Religion is not acceptable and will not be tolerated. Such condemnation would, in theory at least, be most effective coming from the people whose faith is being hijacked. Terrorists would be marginalized by their own people.

I don't quite understand - would this worldwide religious coalition of sorts rise up with one voice to condemn religious violence and intolerance whilst simultaneously persecuting and killing religious voices that disagree..?

[shunyadragon]

Saw this article yesterday: http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/...-pope-francis/ about Shimon Peres proposing a United Nation style organization of Religious Groups. The purpose is to fight against those who commit violence in the name of religion.

For the first time in my life, I see a viable way for a one world religion to be established.

The group would start by saying the violence in the name of religion like practiced by militant Islam is wrong. To be "fair" they would add in the violence committed by Hindus and Buddhist in Asia plus Christian Missionary violence against native peoples in the past. This would sound all well and good and acceptance of the group to judge religion would grow.

Eventually they will start looking at beliefs of groups and say these can't be permitted either. You think you're religion is the only way to God, you're out. Male-only clergy is not acceptable. Eventually you could go to different religions and have style differences but not real difference in belief. The end result would not be a single world-wide denomination but multiple denominations all teaching the same thing under this umbrella organization.

Such an organization would have more a humanist ecumenical perspective not grounded in Revelation, which all others have failed going back to the World Parliament of Religions over 100 years ago. The problem is almost all the individual religions have an agenda anchored in doctrines and dogma of ancient literature. Most, except Buddhism, have scripture that allows for the alternative of holy war against non believers. Ancient doctrine and dogma has always trumped humanist reform to promote unity, reform, and resolution of conflict. Spiritual institutions kike Unitarian Universalists and the Humanist Manifesto approach this goal from the humanist perspective.

Beginning in 1844 the Baha'i Faith has embraced this goal from a theist perspective, and writings to support them. The principles and goals of the United Nations, Unitarian Universalists, and Humanist Manifesto are first Revealed in detail in the Baha'i writings from the theist perspective including waging war in the name of religion.

This thread goes best in Comparative Religions.

[shunyadragon]

I think the history of Christianity suggests that state-sponsored churches are not a good idea, but I don't want to derail your thread so I'll just leave this there.

I believe Romans 13 supports a Christian Theocracy.

[tabibito]

I believe Romans 13 supports a Christian Theocracy.

I am almost afraid to ask .... How?

[tabibito]

I was reminded of what China is doing. They're trying to set up their own nationalism-friendly, state-sponsored version of the Christian church. This is an excellent spiritual opportunity for genuine Christians in China. Consider what happened in Germany that led to the Confessing Church.

And in the Roman Empire, come to that.

[One Bad Pig]

I was reminded of what China is doing. They're trying to set up their own nationalism-friendly, state-sponsored version of the Christian church. This is an excellent spiritual opportunity for genuine Christians in China. Consider what happened in Germany that led to the Confessing Church.

This is not news. The Three-Self Patriotic Movement is decades old - and China has a huge number of house churches that want nothing to do with it.

[Truthseeker]

Romans 13 is perhaps one of the most mistranslated chapters in the Bible. Also the most misinterpreted one.

[shunyadragon]

Romans 13 is perhaps one of the most mistranslated chapters in the Bible. Also the most misinterpreted one.

Maybe, but it justified theocracies in Christianity for thousands of years, and the Roman Church confirmed by the writings of St. Augustine.

[Truthseeker]

Maybe, but it justified theocracies in Christianity for thousands of years, and the Roman Church confirmed by the writings of St. Augustine.

Would you mind making a detailed justification for those claims?

[shunyadragon]

Would you mind making a detailed justification for those claims?

As far as the Theocratic Government the Roman Church (RCC) it is a matter of history going back to the whole history of Christian Rome when ruled by the Bishop of Rome, and before when the Emperor ruled by Divine Right of God. Josephus first defined the term for Jewish government as only God and God's Law is sovereign, the meaning has further been defined. The Jewish rule would be characterized the actual Biblical Law is God's Law. The theocratic governments of Europe are more accurately described as ecclesiocracy, as ruling by Divine right where the head of the religion rules or the civil leader rules by Divine Right obligated to the State Reigion as the only authority and justification for rule. This ecclesiocracy was modeled after St Augustine's writings. Some define pure theocracy as the head of state is described as a literal prophet of God as in the LDS Church, which in its original form was a theocracy.

Source: http://www.the-philosophy.com/thomas-aquinas-saint-augustine

Augustine distinguished two kingdoms of men and God, the temporal and spiritual power. The temporal power, because it is based on natural law, which part of inequality physical men, is imperfect. The temporal power must submit to the spiritual power, and just perfect. The State, with Augustine, must be the guarantor of divine order, serve the interests of the Church (which refutes Ockham William of St Augustine)

The aim of the policy will therefore constitute a “papal theocracy,” that is to say, the affirmation of universal domination, in terms of time as the spiritual, the supremacy of the popes princes, emperors or presidents

So what about democracy?

The political autonomy of men is an illusion, men must rely on God. It is this reason that justifies the theocracy: God no, men living in community can not spread, according to Augustine, that injustice.

Augustine operates a total reversal in the origin of power. While for the Greek Aristotle and Plato derived power from rationality, the power in Augustine takes its source in God’s creation. And despite their equality, men are placed in a position of heteronomy. We spend an immanent order in which men are masters of their political destiny, to a transcendent order, dominated by God.

Thus, if Augustine is not really the issue of better diet, its onto-theology tells us about its position that democracy can only be an unjust regime without legitimacy.

© Copyright Original Source

[Thoughtful Monk]

No.

Apparently I was not clear in my OP. Allow me to restate my position.

I am ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY AGAINST the establishment of a one world religion and I would not IN ANY WAY SUPPORT SUCH AN ORGANIZATION. I believe such an organization would be a denial of the truth of Christianity that God incarnated on earth as man to save us from our sins. It would end being in opposition to historical Christianity as the points of view are fundamentally incompatible.

I posted this as I have read for years about the coming one-world religion but for the first time I saw a really viable path to its establishment. I posted this in a Christian portion because I was interested in other Christians opinions on how much of a sign of the times (not necessarily the end times) this was.

[Thoughtful Monk]

This is not news. The Three-Self Patriotic Movement is decades old - and China has a huge number of house churches that want nothing to do with it.

I know that. However I thought I had read something in the news recently that the Chinese government is putting more energy or something into the movement. I think they see the house church movement as a threat and are trying to get them into the 'official' church.

[shunyadragon]

No.

Apparently I was not clear in my OP. Allow me to restate my position.

I am ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY AGAINST the establishment of a one world religion and I would not IN ANY WAY SUPPORT SUCH AN ORGANIZATION. I believe such an organization would be a denial of the truth of Christianity that God incarnated on earth as man to save us from our sins. It would end being in opposition to historical Christianity as the points of view are fundamentally incompatible.

I posted this as I have read for years about the coming one-world religion but for the first time I saw a really viable path to its establishment. I posted this in a Christian portion because I was interested in other Christians opinions on how much of a sign of the times (not necessarily the end times) this was.

I never assumed that you either opposed or supported such an effort. I just made the observation that because this would be a humanist effort to bring together strongly opposing religions, that it was doomed to failure. Your strong opposition to such an organization is shared by most in the different religions that would be the candidates for this effort. The World Parliament of Religions over 100 years ago was the first of such a humanist effort and failed for the same reasons.

Also, that there is theistic religion that has these goals since 1844, the Baha'i Faith that has a theistic basis for these goals.