>>10994
Is your problem an apparent dichotomy between unity in the Body of Christ and ethnic boundaries? Or is it being unsure if God is real / Christianity is true? If it's the second one, you need to focus on that and ignore the rest of this reply.
>Past countries, civilizations, borders, generations, ethnicity, race, any group of people can be united with Jesus. Rich or poor, black or white, old or young, anyone can follow Jesus. Anyone can be together with someone else in Jesus.
>But I have a problem. If Jesus isn't the Son of God as he says, what's the point of uniting with other people? If we're all too different, all too divided already, why not just keep to ourselves?
Both of these statements are correct but have different usages of the word "unite." In the first, you talk about being united in the Body of Christ. In the second, you talk about being united politically, socially, demographically and/or genetically. These are not the same thing. A problem you appear to be having is that you look at statements about being united in Christ and you are unable to conceive of this in terms other than temporal worldliness. You are only able to think about it in political or demographic terms. Your whole post screams this: being concerned with the natural rather than the supernatural. But now you may be falling into another trap. You may think, "Well if the kind of uniting Christians talk about is
merely spiritual then that's fine. It doesn't threaten my other beliefs so it can have a place over there in the corner." In other words, you may start thinking that being united in Christ is a lesser kind of uniting almost to the point of being a platitude. This is wrong. Our union in Christ is greater, more important, more
real than any worldly union including ethnicity.
I specify this in particular to counter a temptation in my own mind You must understand that it is not our union in Christ that is the small thing in the shadow of our ethnic and political differences but the reverse. In order to gain this understanding, you must free yourself from the chains of materialist thinking and start considering the supernatural. As long as you're always thinking in terms of "What implications does this have on society?" instead of "What implications does this have on our souls?" then you're missing the point.
>Creating a heaven on earth instead of waiting on earth to get to heaven.
Are you the guy who was asking earlier about how to bring the Kingdom of Heaven to this world? I made a reply in the old QTDDTOT (not in the extra thread you made) but you made no reply or comment. The thread is gone now and whoever archived the site in March didn't archive that thread but my point was to the effect that the Kingdom of Heaven is already at hand. It's already seeping through the cracks of this world. By aligning your will to God's (and in as much as you do so), you can be a participant in that process. That's the short version.
>to make a paradise on earth, the earth must be ruled by the strong.
Is this really true? What's a paradise and how does the strong ruling over the weak bring that about? This is not a rhetorical question. I'll assume that by "strength" you mean not just physical strength but also cunning. But do you mean moral strength as well? Think carefully before you answer lest you contradict yourself.
>On one hand...
>On the other hand...
How many times do we humans have to fuck up before we realise that utopias are a lie? Every utopia becomes a dystopia inevitably. And before you say, "But muh National Socialism worked fine until the rest of the world ganged up on it," National Socialism got destroyed a little over a decade after it gained power. It scarcely got a chance to show how it would turn out. Look at any so-called utopia that lasted more than a generation.
>That wasn't real utopia! Real utopias haven't been tried yet.
First of all
>
Secondly, what makes you so sure yours will be different? The great mistake of the Americans is thinking that if they design a clever enough system then everything will be well. They thought, and still do think, that a particular system of governance will be able to counteract people's negative tendencies.
the fault is not entirely on burgers since they learned this from European philosophers of the time but nobody has bought into it quite like they have The problem is not the system though. The problem is people and the fact that we keep choosing to do evil rather than good. This applies to both the ruled and the rulers. No man-made system will ever be able to solve this. The proof is in the last four centuries or so of failure.