Tuesday, October 12, 2010

Not like the 1970s

Back in the 1970s, lots of people were saying we were in big trouble, running out of oil, and so forth. Looks like they were wrong, so why should we pay attention now?

Sharon Astyk explains here what the differences are, but also why they weren't so wrong in what they actually said, rather than what people remember they said. It deserves a careful read.

The odd thing is that Christians are always saying that Jesus is returning any day, in which case things must be desperate and about to hit the wall. At the same time, they're always ready to hear from Rush Limbaugh and other such false prophets that everything is fine with the empire and that those that think the wheels are coming off don't know what they're talking about. Some mutually exclusive ideas need to be rubbed together between the ears of such folks, I'd say.

Thing is, what Jesus and the apostles said about the end applied right then, when spoken to people that were at least 2000 years from that event. If we don't know how those words applied to people listening as Jesus spoke, who would definitely not see his return, we don't have any idea what he was talking about.

If you expect to see how his words apply, you have to stop reading into it that Jesus will be coming tomorrow while the world we're in love with is doing just fine and our favorite empire and "our troops" are taking great care of us - or worse yet, the silly stuff about Christians being whisked out of their SUVs as they're rolling down the freeway.

How do these words make sense no matter when he returns or when the world ends, if we have no idea when that is? You know, we really don't!

In fact, Matthew 24-25 is how it looks whenever the wheels are coming off any civilization, even the relatively minor unraveling of 1914-1918, nonetheless horrifying, which in hindsight clearly was the beginning of the end of Western Civilization - this whole comfortable way of floating above it all and being able to do without God's provision because we've become so good at strip-mining the earth and those on it who aren't as good at killing and robbing as the enlightened West, so that we can live independently of the God who made it all.

So it was, in a small way, when Nebuchadnezzar took Jerusalem and exiled the people from their earthly kingdom because God had seen enough of them using it to prostitute themselves to this world, so that the land could rest at last. It was the same when Rome unraveled, because again the Christians worshiped it. And it is again the case today, and again because the Christians have given themselves up to the worship of the kingdoms of this world - the United States most of all, only because it is presently the gaudiest, most arrogant, and most full of the worldly power that modern Christians have chosen instead of the cross.

One thing the Bible makes clear is that bowing down to Satan in order to receive the kingdoms of this world, as Jesus refused to do, never works in the end, although it starts out looking great. And that's what we do, when we rely on these kingdoms through stealing, killing, destroying, and lying - the deeds of Satan - to fight our battles.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

One thing I never understand is why you call these people Christians? The ones you refer here to twice in this paragraph.
>>the Christians have given themselves up to the worship of the kingdoms of this world - the United States most of all, only because it is presently the gaudiest, most arrogant, and most full of the worldly power that modern Christians have chosen instead of the cross.<<
Isnt the fact that these "Christians" do follow earthly power the way they do..Isnt that the sign that shows they are not Christians?
Isnt a Christian one who follows Jesus? One who drinks the cup that he drank?

im thinking of example. i am kevans wife in this country because i have a legal paper contract that says so. but, i am his wife to you because i hve taken a vow before GOD and to GOD to be faithfull to Kevan to be his wife...
So, are you giving them the title Christian because they claim it?Or, because we cant come up with another label? Why do you call >>
the gaudiest, most arrogant, and most full of the worldly power<< Christian? Is it for the sake of arguemnent? because we cant come up with another label?
I ask myself Why do I care? Why am I asking you this?
Because I like hearing you.I want others to get what you are meaning also. but, I dont get this.Anothere reason is if the Rush campers are saved followers of JESUS making them Christians I am missing out on a lot of fellowship. You see, I dont believe these Christian are well aquainted with sorrow. And, to me, sacraficial suffering and Christianity are never far apart.
So, do you refer to them as Christians because they refer to themselves as Christians? Or is it becasue they are indeed Christian? Do you believe they are Christian? DOes it matter if you believe it? If you dont should you be writting as if...Its sorta confusing to me.
Judy B
Davis Ca.

10/12/2010 12:43 PM  
Anonymous Jason said...

Hey Judy,

I came away with your same question from reading Mr. Attwood's posts. His writing is labored with the misconception that America is a Christian nation and that most Americans would even care to hear his biblical rebukes. Both are false assumptions.

He agrees, however, that America is not a Christian nation, so his incessant use of the word "Christian" is perplexing indeed. Peter and I have discussed this at length in the comments of his post entitled "The Bible on why Christians are last to understand... "

The answer to this contradiction is rather simple, actually. Peter's primary motivation is criticizing American foreign policy, but secular government policy is not conducive to biblical criticism any more than the individuals drafting it are. Therefore, he tries to bridge the gap by holding government policy to biblical standards, and when it falls short as all governments do, he transfers all the subsequent guilt onto the small minority of Spirit-led Christians in this country.

Unfortunately, the logic of blaming a small minority that has little influence on foreign policy is inherently nonsensical, so he is forced to expand the term "Christian" to include any Tom, Dick, or Harry that have seen the inside of a church.

Perhaps if enough people express the concern you did about the abuse of the word "Christian" he'll find a sneakier way to shroud his politics in the Gospel.

10/13/2010 7:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi all,
Jason thanks for your comments. I am a person who has to read the same thing many times before I can confidently respond. I miss a lot if I don't do that. I usually don't have much time to write. So, be patient if I don't initially make much sense. I'm working on it.
I was reading this today, actually, I was reading Haggai chapter 1. I just pasted this potion here to better ask and explain myself. >> Haggai 1:12 Then Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel, Joshua son of Jehozadak, the high priest, and the whole remnant of the people obeyed the voice of the LORD their God and the message of the prophet Haggai, because the LORD their God had sent him. And the people feared the LORD.<<
When I read this Bible communication it reminds me of the way Peter uses the words American Christian..or phrase "American Christian".( AC's)
The way the WORD here says:
>THE people obeyed and, Lord THEIR GOD
and again Lord THEIR GOD<
there is something similar in the way Attwood is addressing, or, categorizing. Something similar to Haggai's reference to"the people" In his writings. The way Peter says American Christians is somehow honorable to refer to them as "the people". I don't think Peter questions weather the AC's are Christians..Just as Haggai didn't make it a one-to-one personal issue for THE PEOPLE..
So for tonight, because I am tired. I suggest we learn why Haggai indeed why GOD 'referred to the people as the people. I'm thinking if I was listening to Haggai I'd be asking myself this question, am I one of "the people?" Is that your purpose in your style of labeling as AC's? To get the readier to ask themselves "am I one of the AC's?"
I am sorry I have gotten this topic way off from your original post Peter. It would be just fine to drop the conversation. Unless it is helpful somehow. No nitpicking from "the people" please...

10/14/2010 12:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the "no nitpicking" from "the people" was meant to be a funny.I forgot to put the LOL afterward. Seriously though, for times sake.. I keep the nitpicking on low.

10/14/2010 1:06 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

>>It's being Attwood among the Christoids, among Christians without Christ<<.
I thought it was just life.
I am still so very asleep regarding all this GOD stuff.I'm choosing to sleep rather then get involved because its a riddle. I don't have time for riddles. Or, just not real ones..Heres another question that you dont need to or have to answer. Do I have to pay attention to riddles?
Ill be back and reread. As usual in talking with you, to my benefit, I got more then a great answer to my question.
I do have to comment some.

10/14/2010 8:19 AM  
Blogger Peter Attwood said...

"The words of the wise and their riddles." You seek the wisdom of God, and you'll have riddles to work with. You see that a lot in the gospels. Pay attention to the words of Jesus, and you'll find some perplexing things to consider.

The nice thing is that Jesus rejoiced and thanked his Father that he hides these things form the wise and prudent and reveals them to babes. So we see in Mark 4:9-12 - who gets to have the parables and riddles explained?

10/14/2010 9:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Peter, start a "riddle column".
Surely because GOD answered my question/riddle yesterday,today I got a new riddle for myself to solve. Maybe you all have already solved this one. I still thought it would be better shared.


What is the difference between a riddle and a question? by the way, i know this is a question. :)

10/15/2010 9:22 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home