Replies

Also, I see no doctrinal basis for a cult that wants to take “CONTROL” to pave the way for Christs second coming. do you?

Nor do I. In fact, studying scripture would indicate that while The Almighty's Church will be sorted out, that won't happen in the open until the end times.

I do not believe the devout assembling will bring that return of the Messiah, rather that He will return when the prophesies are fulfilled. That will happen as He wills.

I am concerned that they purport to desire to transfer all wealth to themselves from any non believer and disperse as they ( they, the “KING”) see fit to poor believers. That sounds authoritarian at best.

First off, Cruz didn't anoint himself anything. Someone else did.

How do you feel about "knights" as in Knights of Columbus? (They aren't riding the countryside pillaging nor rescuing damsels in distress, although they have many charitable ventures which could be construed as the latter.) The closest they come to pillaging is not calling my numbers at BINGO. (That's a joke)

On confirmation many Christians are anointed as 'Soldiers of the Lord' yet you don't see them lining up in the church yard for maneuvers.

These are spiritual things, that war is a spiritual one, and while earthly metaphors may be in use, the war is spiritual in nature.

Some thoughts on what you said.

Someone who is an 'art of the deal' guy and a billionaire is actively transferring wealth to himself. That is the whole reason to go into business, and that person is hardly alone in attempting to do so.

We have an entire government and economy which clings heavily to that concept, and our economic system, when functioning correctly, facilitates that process.

I, personally, would prefer to deal with someone who is bound by faith to deal forthrightly with others. Profit is part of the picture, and the lure of lucre makes for a multitude of hypocrites. Christ chased the moneychangers from the Temple, and they came back with a vengeance. It matters not that someone profess to give out of the 'goodness of their heart' if, in fact, they aren't. Many of the most conspicuous examples (like a certain TV host's car giveaway) do not pass scrutiny and were either just rank promotional gimmicks, one person taking credit for the efforts of others, or people enriching themselves and using their particular 'cause' as a lever to pry money from the unsuspecting. What profit a man if he gain the whole world and lose his soul?

The idea of dispensing wealth earned or created to those less fortunate used to be known as "charity", and Constitutionally, is not the province of Government, but of the individual. (As you have done for the least of these, so have you done for me.)

That charity, the true giving of the fruits of our labors to those in need, has been largely replaced by the Government confiscating a portion of the fruits of our labors using the full power of the State and then redistributing that wealth. That is neither Constitutional nor true charity in the Christian sense. It is money taken at gunpoint, not freely given, and the distributed wealth is not given by the giver, but taken from others under duress and used to buy a reputation for the one distributing it.

Nor, do I see the transfer of all wealth from non-believers (unlike sharia and some secular systems) being viable in any economy. The producers of wealth will simply stop. If you have nothing to take, no one can take it. (Gone Galt).

Even the faithful placed normal limits on the most extreme demands of the Church, the tithe: A tenth. Would that the Government would be satisfied with such a puny share.

And note, too, the Ten Commandments explicitly state "Thou shalt not steal" and "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors goods" among other things, so the accumulation of wealth has some boundaries for those constrained by Christian values.

Even an honest Christian theocracy would be bound, at least in theory, by its own doctrine.

We have seen plenty of those who are not so constrained in their dealings.

(Disclaimer: NO, I AM NOT, REPEAT NOT SAYING TRUMP FALLS THERE, I AM NOT IMPLYING IT EITHER, IF YOU WANT TO MEASURE HIS STUFF AGAINST THAT, GO AHEAD AT YOUR LEISURE).

I am referring to the Soros' and others out there who really don't care how they accumulate wealth, whether by means fair or foul. To them, the ends justify the means.

We commonly refer to our Constitutional Republic as being based on Judeo-Christian principles, so why decry someone who is raised to apply those?

It might even work better than someone who, for instance, will side with those of the Muslim faith.

I am unapologetically Catholic, a Christian, of European Ancestry, and of a lineage which has contributed heavily to Western Civilization. If we stick to Western Civilization constrained by Judeo-Christian ideals, there not only is no shame in it, but there is the possibility that the Republic founded by those of a similar cultural and intellectual heritage will function as intended.

Are these people who will keep us in endless war for fun and profit?

Unlikely.

Are these people who will deny God-given Rights to those who are of this Country?

Again, unlikely, at least compared to the secular humanists and the Communists and the people infused with the gospel of situation ethics.

Looking back a few decades, it might be good to give such a try.

We see common references on this forum to America getting back to the teachings of Almighty God in order to prosper.

An end to the slaughter of the unborn, partially born, barely born in spite of efforts to prevent that, and the sale of their body parts.

An end to the sort of secular humanism that would starve and dehydrate someone to death.

Imagine, if you will, the jubilation in Heaven over that.

The concept of making justice 'just' again.

A return to politicians who truly understood the solemnity of an oath taken 'so help me God', and the meaning of the words, imploring the assistance of our Creator, from whom our unalienable Rights come.

We have Constitutional constraints against theocracy.

Somehow that constraint has been ideologically morphed into a wall of separation between church and state, making the latter devoid of a moral compass. That was not the original intent, but the intent that no one religion should be the State religion, as the Church of England became under the Tudors. The separation was one of the Church not having dominion over the same things as the State. (Render unto Caesar those things which are Caesar's, and unto God those things which are His).

You don't have to be a believer to flourish under such government, there are plenty who are not and have.

But it would also preclude the replacement of a State religion with a State non-religion, the secular humanist and situation ethics which dominate political philosophy today, and frankly undermine the Rule of Law.

With a strict moral compass, and the safeguards in the Constitution, AND a government composed of individuals who take seriously their oaths before Almighty God to uphold, protect, and defend that same Constitution, America could be truly great again.