@"Minstrel" -
The Mormons are a historically violent bunch, so I could see them easily slipping into the "God told me to do it" takeover frame of mind. While Pentecostals are... excitable..., I couldn't see them falling into the same trap in a violent, takeover sort of way. Southern Baptists are probably the least scary bunch of folk I have ever ran into - I could see a Boy Scout troop doing more damage, and that on a school day.
Catholics could become worrisome, especially if led by a charismatic Jesuit... like Mormons, Catholics have a history of proclivity towards violence, and Jesuits doubly so - and Catholicism has the numbers to make a formidable army.
If Christians are to be in office, it should be Christians who have a clear understanding of their own Book, especially the prohibitions against mixing spiritual religion and temporal politics. Prohibitions clearly pronounced by Jesus himself, with such memorable lines as "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God that which belongs to God" - probably the clearest prohibition against mixing the two I've ever read.
When that prohibition is ignored, we get problems as the current row with Muslims, the row with Mormons in the mid 19th century, the row with the Christians of the Crusades, etc. Their own God will eventually judge them, but in the mean time, all of the rest of us suffer for their sins.
The scariest part, perhaps, is that every time militant Islam rises, a militant Christianity rises to meet it in self-defense, but just as their Muslim opponents do, they tend to try and blame their violence on their God. I can't see how that makes them any better, only just as good at lying to themselves.
Don't get me wrong - I've no problem with violence itself, especially in self defense, but it should be done for the right reasons, no predicated on lying to one's self. If a god is truly a god, that god is capable of taking care of itself - much more capable than you or I, or any other mere mortal. A god that requires mere mortals to defend it is a weak god indeed! What kind of a god would admit that mere mortals have more power than it does? Shouldn't that god be worshiping the stronger mortals that defend it instead?
The Mormons are a historically violent bunch, so I could see them easily slipping into the "God told me to do it" takeover frame of mind. While Pentecostals are... excitable..., I couldn't see them falling into the same trap in a violent, takeover sort of way. Southern Baptists are probably the least scary bunch of folk I have ever ran into - I could see a Boy Scout troop doing more damage, and that on a school day.
Catholics could become worrisome, especially if led by a charismatic Jesuit... like Mormons, Catholics have a history of proclivity towards violence, and Jesuits doubly so - and Catholicism has the numbers to make a formidable army.
If Christians are to be in office, it should be Christians who have a clear understanding of their own Book, especially the prohibitions against mixing spiritual religion and temporal politics. Prohibitions clearly pronounced by Jesus himself, with such memorable lines as "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God that which belongs to God" - probably the clearest prohibition against mixing the two I've ever read.
When that prohibition is ignored, we get problems as the current row with Muslims, the row with Mormons in the mid 19th century, the row with the Christians of the Crusades, etc. Their own God will eventually judge them, but in the mean time, all of the rest of us suffer for their sins.
The scariest part, perhaps, is that every time militant Islam rises, a militant Christianity rises to meet it in self-defense, but just as their Muslim opponents do, they tend to try and blame their violence on their God. I can't see how that makes them any better, only just as good at lying to themselves.
Don't get me wrong - I've no problem with violence itself, especially in self defense, but it should be done for the right reasons, no predicated on lying to one's self. If a god is truly a god, that god is capable of taking care of itself - much more capable than you or I, or any other mere mortal. A god that requires mere mortals to defend it is a weak god indeed! What kind of a god would admit that mere mortals have more power than it does? Shouldn't that god be worshiping the stronger mortals that defend it instead?
Diogenes was eating bread and lentils for supper. He was seen by the philosopher Aristippus, who lived comfortably by flattering the king.
Said Aristippus, ‘If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have to live on lentils.’ Said Diogenes, ‘Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king.’
Said Aristippus, ‘If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have to live on lentils.’ Said Diogenes, ‘Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king.’