God calls nations to special roles

Nicholas T. Wright

You wrote, " And what God calls in one generation may move and shift over time; the great Old Testament prophets saw God's hand in the rise of Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, Syria, Egypt and Rome -- and also God's judgment on all of them for the ways in which they carried out their commission inappropriately."

If one is willing to ponder about things, not all that long in the past, could one of the reasons that America came to be what it was is what America's role in World War II turned out to be.

If one were to think that maybe, just maybe, some coincidences are not merely coincidences, I have heard that this is true, anyone can correct me if I am wrong.

The German officer's wife whose birthday was June 6 and because of her birthday they happened to be in Berlin instead of where he normally would have been at the start of the D-Day invasion.

Among the seeds of the birth of the USA were also scattered the seeds of it's destruction.

Some may disagree with the above sentence and they would be included with quite a few others that have lived in other countries of "power" throughout history.

God has a plan and has had a plan since before creation and God's plan will come to Fruition and one should remember that Jesus said, "My Kingdom is not of this world", so setting up a theocracy on earth to rule the earth, according to Jesus, is not part of God's Plan.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Secular
You need to read my response to Gene Davenport, then study.
It will change your life.

"And what God calls in one generation may move and shift over time; the great Old Testament prophets saw God's hand in the rise of Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, Syria, Egypt and Rome -- and also God's judgment on all of them for the ways in which they carried out their commission inappropriately."Posted by: MrMeaner |
#############################################

The above is utter non-sense, through out the old testament the so called pronouncements of god were only meant for the hebrews. And no where does the deity claim he is the only god. In fact the hebrew deity implicitly concedes that there other gods for other people. In fact he forbids the hebrews from worshiping other gods. In light of this it is silly to claim that the hebrew god let others dominate. Others dominated because they were more powerful.

Mr. Nicholas T. Wright, you are full of scat. First of all you cannot establish if there is a DOG, leave alone what its intentions are. But you simply claim to know the non-existent its preferences are, as though someone patted you on your shoulder and revealed it to you. Don't be silly.

Excellent!!

I don't believe I have ever used that word to describe anything on WaPo, but that was truly an outstanding Bible-based analysis.

"And what God calls in one generation may move and shift over time; the great Old Testament prophets saw God's hand in the rise of Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, Syria, Egypt and Rome -- and also God's judgment on all of them for the ways in which they carried out their commission inappropriately."

Excellent point. We can also assume that if those kingdoms were used to further a common purpose, such as the Assyrian, who God himself used as the "staff of his indignation" to scatter his people, as promised, then the long-term result of migrations, and the creation of nations that came about as a result of that scattering, would have to also be part of the plan. Until fairly recent times, in most parts of the world, your ethnicity and your nationality were pretty much the same thing. We are just different tribes of peoples descended from earlier tribes of peoples, maybe even known by different names than before.
The exception, of course, is the USA.
In Biblical terms it can be said that we are a "nation of people gathered from all nations".
I think I've read that before, back in the scary part of Ezekiel, I believe

This whole topic is inane. Mr. Wright is full of himself. This is utter nonsense.

"Treat others as if they were more important than you; give to those in need; etc. etc. The difference is that there's a perspective on the world that motivates those types of actions - it's a response to the idea that people (and this world) are fundamentally broken."

Pyang1, why 'more important'? If it's a typo, I'll let it slide, but otherwise it's a prime example of the degredation and sub-humanizing common in most Christian traditions. I'll grant you, a lot of good has been done, but I thought the Bible said that people were inherently perfect, created in Bible God's own image (personally, I think it's rather large example of hubris that "God" automatically denotes the Christian one), not 'funamentally broken.'

If more Christian traditions promoted an equality mindset, or even one that acknowledged, as the Bible does, that some are better than all, but not in all things, I might still be one today. As it is, I got tired of being talked down to.

PYANG1: (cntd)
I’ve yet to find a group of three or more people that can agree on what that is all about.
In a nutshell, my main disagreement with the Christian religion is not that I hate their version of God or scripture, I simply don’t see it, the entire Bible, as being any different, any more unique, any more divine, any more inspirational than any other mythological text.
One could take just about any epic novel and derive as many aspects of morality, societal behavior, historical inconsistencies, good vs. evil and a litany of mistakes and consequences.
I have read the Bible, end to end, alongside various interpreters, both in religious and academic forums. My conclusion was not anger, ire, rage or hate, it was simply “So what?”
I see it just like I see all the self-help books written in the last 150 years. Same stuff, much of it okay, but simply repackaged common sense.
I can be a good husband, father, worker, commuter, consumer, neighborhood resident, charitable contributor, WITHOUT having to swear a loyalty oath to a jealous and vengeful, magical and elusive superstition. I don’t need to pretend to be immortal, I don’t need a magic superhero to fight the bad guys for me.
Believers have the capacity to be great people, they also have the capacity to do great harm, just as is the case among non-believers. It’s all about what you need to get through the day I guess.

My main grudge with Christianity , as well as some other religions, is the “My way or the highway” fanaticism, and the prevelent charlatan antics and claims. Have you ever watched Osteen, Meyers, Schuller, etc? How about Falwell, Swaggert, Dollar etc.?
They use fear, word games and parlor tricks to suck in the saps, bilk them for their cat food money then drive away fully ‘blessed’ by their Savior. Mega-churches offering risk-free salvation and a pain-path to personal success, using orchestras, multimedia and flashy dance moves.
No thanks friend, I’ll pass.

PYANG1
Thank you for a well reasoned and respectful response.

“But if you can manage to follow the advice given in the Bible (let's just say stuff that most non-religious people could agree on, which is the large majority of it all), that's a pretty good plan to follow by any moral standard.”
I disagree that ‘the large majority’ of the bible contains useful advice. The Old testament certainly has the ten commandments, which are fairly common in one form or another even among the most ancient non judeo-christian societies. So sure they’re mostly good ideas, but hardly unique. The first three (or four) being the exception, they serve no moral purpose other than as a solidarity oath to one specific deity.
And among the Proverbs there is, here and there some advice that is also pretty standard and non-unique, do unto others stuff. Then you get to Leviticus and Deuteronomy which if all that ‘advice’ was followed would enslave a person to ridiculous rites, rules and rituals. Even early Christians were happy to unload themselves of that burden.
Of course there’s also the OT stories about kingdoms and prophets. Noah, Job, David, Solomon. Great stories for children (once watered down quite a bit) then a lot of debauchery, incest, perversion, disease, famine, murder, savage attacks on neighboring tribes, much whoring, lying and treachery. All interesting stuff, but not really helpful. And don’t get me started on the hundreds of pages of family trees and census data. Then the minor prophets, mostly vague and symbolic prognostications that like Nostradamus’s quatrains, can be bent to fit seemingly perfectly to everything from a global thermonuclear catastrophe to a simple skillet fire.
Then we get to the New Testament. Starting with the Gospels we get four after-the-fact versions of single events. Like eyewitness/hearsay statements each one has a slightly different take, slightly different perspective. There’s the red words of Jesus, fortune cookie stuff mostly, vague enough to apply to about any situation, specific only occasionally, mostly pacifist stuff tailored to soothe the downtrodden and give them some hope for a cosmic comeuppance.
Then we get to Acts, the very, very early church. Some pretty interesting stories I guess, if you buy into the original premise.
Then all those letters to the different groups. THAT’s were we get into debates again… For example: Paul was pretty specific about the role of women in religious meetings and groups, does Paul’s word count as infallible and immutable messages from the savior himself or were the letters really specific responses to specific groups? It’s an age old debate that really only applies to internal church politics, so it doesn’t really apply to anything familiar in my life.
Skip ahead to the last book. Whoa…. What a freaky trip. There’s enough bizarre symbolism (or is it literal?) there to pack a theater with fantasy/sci-fi fans. (Cntd)

Gladerunner-

Yes, "unrevealed secret knowledge is not a whit better than no knowledge at all." That's why when Christians move forward on something, they say "perhaps God will work this way" based on their experiences, individual wisdom and thoughtfulness, etc. The mystical aspect comes from the idea that Christians believe that God is actively putting things into place and teaching people specific truths through the circumstances in their lives, through their interactions in church, whatever they're studying, etc. As a non-Christian, you don't have to believe any of that. But if you can manage to follow the advice given in the Bible (let's just say stuff that most non-religious people could agree on, which is the large majority of it all), that's a pretty good plan to follow by any moral standard.

Your characterization of denomination is just wrong. Most people agree on the basic tenets, and it's stated that truly believing the basics is enough. Denominations differ on all sorts of things, like music, and that's legitimate. Denominations also differ on interpretations, and yeah, there are some people that are outside the mainstream.

But the majority of it really is clear, and if you don't agree that it is, then… I dunno, I guess as long as you're unwilling to be proven wrong then there's not much anyone can do. All it would take to clear up your confusion would be a proper readthrough of the Bible with some context. But I understand we're all here to troll each other and so I'm okay with that, lol.

Finally, I don't think a Christian somehow has a better or more complete plan. There is a lot of advice in the Bible if you choose to take it. Treat others as if they were more important than you; give to those in need; etc. etc. The difference is that there's a perspective on the world that motivates those types of actions - it's a response to the idea that people (and this world) are fundamentally broken.

PYANG1:
Apologies for the hijack.

“First off, an omnipotent being (not a "creature," as you put it) would have plans for any country.”
What exactly are those plans? (and what’s wrong with creature? God made creatures, lots of them.)
“. . . for someone to clearly define what God's plans are for an entire country - that is indeed self-aggrandizement, because there's no reason to conclude that someone has that intimate of a connection with an omnipotent being.”
Oh, I see. It’s a secret. That’s helpful.
My late, great-aunt Peggy had a cookie recipe. She never shared it with anyone, didn’t even write it down. Now let’s go make a batch.
Unrevealed secret knowledge is not a whit better than no knowledge at all. If God has a plan, but we cannot agree on what that plan is, and in fact as you say, we should be suspicious of anyone that says they DO know what it is, then how much better off are we with the plan, or god himself than without?

“There is some mystical connection that Christians attempt to use when they think about what to do next, but the majority of it is clear”
That’s why we have a bazillion different Christian denominations, because everyone arrives at the same conclusions. Yeah, right.

“just because a Christian does something doesn't mean God wanted it to happen”
Exactly why people are fools to blindly follow the religious interpretations of others. Too many quacks.

“good Christian thinks reasonably and humbly when deciding what to do next.”
There are several thousand interpretations about what god wants us as individuals and as a nation to do, and they’re all over the ideological/theological map. Radical extremes to fuzzy middles, and you say it’s up for us, individually, to interpret and decide. In other words, a philosophy Identical to that of individual without a god just trying to get along as best he can. Not very convincing.

Sorry, I just can’t buy into a philosophy that does nothing more than say “I don’t know what the plan is, but whatever the result turns out to be, that WAS the plan” It adds no value to life, it offers no useful advice whatsoever.

First off, an omnipotent being (not a "creature," as you put it) would have plans for any country. That's not self-aggrandizement, that's just fact. Now, for someone to clearly define what God's plans are for an entire country - that is indeed self-aggrandizement, because there's no reason to conclude that someone has that intimate of a connection with an omnipotent being.

But attempting to figure out what to do next isn't a shameful thing at all. Should Christians feel ashamed for trying to figure out what the next step in their lives are? And when someone - any person - makes a wrong step, what is likely to be more wrong - the common ideal they're aspiring to, or their woeful failure to execute it because they're messed up?

It's not hard for Christians, either. The Bible gives plenty of direction on how people should live their lives, and there are plenty of openings for anyone to follow Biblical advice. There is some mystical connection that Christians attempt to use when they think about what to do next, but the majority of it is clear.

I know what you were getting at - Christians use God to justify doing horrible things and can't think on their own - but if you've studied the history of the church at all, you would know that just because a Christian does something doesn't mean God wanted it to happen. Sometimes, people have stupid intentions. Or evil ones. This includes pastors and leaders. A good Christian thinks reasonably and humbly when deciding what to do next. There's nothing close to "being led by the nose," as you've charged.

"Studying different forms of xianity" is not going to be conducive to you understanding the reality of a Christian trying to live his/her life.

“But discernment of what that role is not so easy.”
By that you mean that true discernment is debatable, uncertain, virtually impossible, why not just say it?
If the role can not be accurately discerned, then it’s existence serves absolutely no purpose to those of us living here.
A statement like this is merely a parlor trick, and an old one. It implies inspired and privileged secret knowledge while at the same time clearly admitting that that knowledge does not in fact exist. It’s the same trick employed by fortune tellers, astrologers, tarot readers, used car salesmen, self-help gurus and other charlatans.
‘God moves in mysterious ways.’ Is just another way of admitting you don’t have a stinkin’ clue, that what you believe makes no sense at all, even to you. How is that any different, whatsoever, from the ‘randomness’ you so despise?

“So just as I believe God has granted America a special role in human history” Pointless. You’ve already admitted you don’t know what that role is, and that it is not necessarily what it used to be or what it will be in the future. You also add that those in power, those who might actually have a clue as to what the role is will likely abuse that knowledge.
This is all utter nonsense, it is all illusion, a sham. You claim belief in something that you cannot define, you cannot discern, you cannot begin to describe, and something that if actually ever seen may be already corrupted by abuses and manipulations by others.
In other words you believe in the belief and nothing more.
What DO you actually know sir?
That if you pray hard enough, something might happen?
Do you actually know what lies beyond this earthly mortality?
Do you know what our nations should do about Afghanistan, Pakistan, North Korea, Iran?
Do you know why some children are born only to suffer?

You pretend to know, you even try to convince others that you know, but you don’t.
It’s all just a sideshow illusionist’s misdirection, a confidence game. ‘Trust me, believe me, pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. And be sure not to forget your tithes and offerings!’

Sham.

I have studied many forms of xtianity, so your assertion I don't know what I'm talking abut is plenty telling on its own. The big boys are here to speak of truth (join us if you can).

I'm not implying he doesn't believe it, I believe he believes it wholeheartedly, as do many other xtians. Its embarrassing as a human to watch folks happily led around by the nose. Its apparent YOU have no understandin of 'shame.'

Fredevil, as it's clear you don't know the first thing about the Christian religion, other than what you've read on the Internet - and you're implying that a Christian like NT Wright doesn't even believe it himself - you might want to leave "On Faith" to the big boys. Your use of the word "shame" here is particularly informative.

Absolutely laughable. To 'discern' that an invisible, omnipotent, omniscient creature has 'plans' for any country, is the height of self-aggrandizement.

Have you folks no shame when you attempt to assert an almighty's desires for you?

Especially one that doesn't even exist...?

Seriously, have you NO shame?