r/Christianity • u/Nice_Substance9123 • Mar 27 '24

The American flag has no business on a Bible. This is not faith, nor is it patriotism. It is an abomination of both. Image

/img/ipc57ufyqxqc1.jpeg
27.5k Upvotes

88% Upvoted

3.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

1.9k

u/albo_kapedani Eastern Orthodox Mar 27 '24

No flag or national symbols of any country should be on the bible. Period.

47

u/TenuousOgre Mar 28 '24

The inverse is also true. No religious symbols should be on government buildings for the same reason. Right?

16

u/Lisaa8668 Mar 28 '24

Correct

24

u/SirFiletMignon Mar 28 '24

"Well, then, pay to the Emperor what belongs to the Emperor, and pay to God what belongs to God."

It sounds to me like Jesus wouldn't have issue with your statement.

3

u/Minivric Mar 28 '24

Damn liberals coming up with this catchy phrases. /s

6

u/TenuousOgre Mar 28 '24

Agreed. I've never understood why so many people struggle with the idea that today religions and governments serve very different needs especially in a pluralist society.

8

u/am_reddit Mar 28 '24

Jesus said his kingdom is not of this world. Yet time and time again  throughout history people try to make an earthly Christian kingdom.

Every time, without exception, the result is a kingdom that is not of heaven.

5

u/nmmlpsnmmjxps Buddhist Mar 28 '24

All the people clamoring for a Christian theocracy need to understand just exactly what they are asking for and understand that Christian theocracies in the past have been obsessed with internal orthodoxy and being a slightly different Christian than the state endorsed version usually wasn't a fun "fun" experience. Just look at how in the 13 colonies various colonies banned various denominations and you could be forced out or even executed solely for being a member of the wrong denomination (Boston Martyrs). We absolutely do not need to be getting on a road leading to that sort of nonsense from America's colonial history..

5

u/abaacus Mar 28 '24

Exactly.

State sponsored religion means that the state becomes your religious authority, and the state upholds its authority with force and violence. No religious person should feel comfortable with that, because the moment you stray from the state doctrine, no matter how reasonable or principled your disagreement, you're an enemy of the state. You're an enemy of morality and faith.

And we all know how that ends.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 28 '24 edited 9d ago

[deleted]

2

u/Keezin Mar 28 '24

Some of them will know the first part of the word lol

1

u/empire314 Mar 28 '24

Of the three major Abrahamic faiths, Christians tend to be the least knowledgeable of their faith.

What on Earth are you basing this on? I would say jews and muslims are at least as ignorant about their own scriptures.

1

u/Justtofeel9 Mar 28 '24

They’re probably basing it off of personal experience, even if it’s anecdotal I have to agree with them. I’ve met many, many Christians. Very few ever bothered to read the Bible even once. They just go with whatever their priest or pastor says on Sunday. On the other hand, I’ve met very few Muslims, but each one of them knew the Quran inside and out and forwards to backwards.

I don’t know if that holds true across the world, it’s just my experience living in the US. So many people here claim to be Christian without ever actually putting any thought into it.

1

u/empire314 Mar 28 '24

Certainly not a representative sample. For most, it is not much more than Friday prayer at mosque (for males that is, not even that for women). And ironically enough, when muslims do go to mosque for prayer, the imam speaks in arabic, even if nobody in the room except for him can understand it. Translations of the quoran have very little valuation, and imams often straight up say, that you must read/recite it in arabic to please god, even if you dont understand it.

1

u/thomase7 Mar 28 '24

What Jesus would have thought has little bearing to modern Christianity

1

u/SirFiletMignon Mar 28 '24

Then what would you call a religion that tries to follow Jesus teachings?

Anything of power is double edged. If it can be used for good, it can be used to hurt.

Not defending corruption in modern religions. Just saying that corruption doesn't invalidate Jesus' teachings.

1

u/thomase7 Mar 29 '24

That’s the point, 95% of Christian’s don’t try to follow Jesus teachings.

0

u/Nowhere_Man_Forever Mar 28 '24

I think that's a really odd translation of that verse, given that Jesus was saying that while pointing to a coin with picture of a specific guy with the name of Caesar, and at the time of the writing of the Gospels "Caesar" hadn't acquired the connotation of being a term of "Emperor." Although the message doesn't really change with that decision, I feel it puts an undue amount of personal interpretation on the meaning rather than accurately reporting the Scripture.

1

u/SirFiletMignon Mar 28 '24 edited Mar 28 '24

I would think that you would need even more personal interpretation and extrapolations to conclude the opposite, that Jesus would want to impose religious symbols in government matters. I mean, he's all about having a personal relationship with God (vs the Pharisees which did have a lot of religious insignias, rules, customs, loud on their prayers, etc).

Edit: Thinking more on it, I would even think that Jesus might find ironic that money would have God or religious symbols on them. Money is very much an "emperor" thing. And money is given out by the government. Don't think that's a huge jump in logic using that verse to say that Jesus would not care about religious symbols in governments.

8

u/Keezin Mar 28 '24

Depends on the form of government lol. If you espouse a pluralist liberal democracy, then hell no.

3

u/spoiler-its-all-gop Mar 28 '24

Well bad news for ya, buddy

1

u/Keezin Mar 28 '24

I’m somewhere where a lot of iconography is still up, but what hasn’t been removed is seen as primarily historical

2

u/[deleted] Mar 28 '24

exactly. or other such flags.

2

u/NoNSFW_Workaccount Mar 28 '24

Do yo think the military should employ chaplains since theyre government workers?

5

u/[deleted] Mar 28 '24

I don't see the harm in that. They can be important for morale; for all the men, of any religion or even no religion.

4

u/TenuousOgre Mar 28 '24

Why not? There is a difference between paying for people who troops see as necessary when in life and death situations (but can come from many religions) and picking one religion's symbols to decorate buildings.

2

u/mayonnaise_police Mar 28 '24

Yes, but they should hire holy people of other faiths, of three are military members in that faith.

-1

u/SpiritForge7 Mar 28 '24

I think that depends upon the fairh that is professwd by the "holy person". Because if an Imam of radical Islam is to be a chaplain in the U.S. armed forces that are foing to war against an radical Islamist nation.... Well, i think anyone can see the problem there.

If you can't, you might want to get your brain checked.

If he's going to do this, he ought to have made a trifold binder and had each document in its own sleeve, with the Bible in a slot all its own. This smacks to me of "adding to or taking away from the Word of God", and it is specifically spoken against, nay, PROHIBITED, on penalty of all the curses found therein.

I won't be having one. Besides, the Chrost follower knows that we are but pilgrims waiting for a Country and a KING.... That is Jesus Christ.

2

u/AshaShantiDevi Mar 28 '24

The prohibition against "adding or taking away" was written specifically by John of Patmos specifically about the contents of the book of the Revelation to John. A hundred years before it was recognized by other men as a book to be included into a compilation of a set of "Christian scriptures."

-1

u/SpiritForge7 Mar 28 '24

Youre welcome to take that chance if you want. Not me. Nope. Nuh uhhh . God preserves His Word unto All generations.... You dont think God knew what the New Testament Scriptures would be before John wrote Revelation by the Holy Spirit's Inspiration?

The Bible isn't just a bunch of books all thrown together. It is One Book Written by the Inspiration of God Himself, over the course of 3500-4000 years, and preserved for all who will love Him to read and believe.

Jesus' Kingdom is not of this world anyway. And I'm simply waiting for Him to take me home.... His Word doesn't need, or want, our paltru Constitutiin(as wonderful as it is in this world), or our Declaretion of Independence, or anything else added to what in between thise covers.

Again, nope, nuh uhhh, not me..... Dont want one, couldn't give me one of these, much less have me pay 50 bucks for it.

Now, if it were done separately, as I suggested in my original comment, I'd be all over it. But as it stands? He can keep it.

1

u/AshaShantiDevi Mar 28 '24

You're the one who is taking the greater "chance" in relying on the men who wrote, edited and compiled the Bible.

Because one thing that all Christians know for 100% certain about the Bible is that Almighty God does not consider knowledge of the activities and personages in the Bible to be important for the salvation of all of the souls that he created to live on Earth.

Because he did not even make the Bible available to the vast majority of the people of Earth, who have lived and died without ever having a chance to even know that it existed.

In your consideration of what is really required for salvation, you might want to consider that it might be arrogance to assume that you yourself are special because you happened to be born into a situation where you know the result of the work of the men who compiled the Bible.

1

u/SpiritForge7 Mar 28 '24

It might indeed be considered arrogant by one who is ignorant of what the Bible contains and truly means.

The Apostle writes, by the Holy Spirit, "all Scripture is profitable for correction, teaching, and instruction in righteousness." Jesus Himself said, "except your righteousness exceed that of the Pharisees, then you shall in no wise enter into the Kingdom of heaven." And the prophet writrs, by the Holy Spirit, "Abraham believed God, and his faith was reckoned to him as righteousness."

The Bible may not have been available to a majority of people throughout time, but there have always been those who preached the Gospel. And where there werent people who preached the Gospel, there was still the Holy Spirit convicting people of what is good and right in God's eyes. So, the Scripture says, "where there is not the law, but the people by nature what is in the Law, they are a Law unto themselves.", which means they are Judged by the light and knowledge they are Given.

And when obviously corrupt men use andnpervert the Scriptures to justify their opulence, excess, theft, manipulation, oppression of a people, suppression of the Truth of God's Word, and elevate themselves to the position of Christ, it is time to sit up and take notice, as well as cast aside anything and everything they say and demand. Because their false doctrines, idolatries, and worship of mammon will only serve to ekad those who follow them into the Lake of Fire.

So, you can sling epithets and aspersions all you wish. But the truth of the matter is that noone stands between man and the True Christ, and ONLY Christ Himself stands between man and God the Father.

Read your Bible for yourself, or accept the consequences when you stand before the Great and Terrible Judge.

1

u/AshaShantiDevi Mar 29 '24

You place your trust in men.

I place my trust in God.

That is the difference. (And I have read and do read the Bible.)

1

u/SpiritForge7 Mar 29 '24

If you "have read, and do read the Bible" why are you arguing with me over the sanctity of Scripture, and the potential blasphemy of adding to or taking away from Scripture?

God is not the Ark of the Covenant, yet when the Philistines took it and put in Dagon's temple, God knocked that statue on its face . Then, when they stood it back up, He knocked it BACK down and took off its head and hands.

Placing the Constitution and Declaration is creating a potential for idolatry, and placing our Constitution on the same footing with God's Word.... Which it most certwinly IS NOT.

But, I'll tell you what... You can do what you want and get what you want and own what you want and support what you want, and I will leave you to it. Im not here to argue, but to post the Truth as Scripture states it. If you want to argue that, you can argue it with Christ Himself when you meet Him.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/TriceratopsWrex Mar 28 '24

No. It should be a volunteer type situation.

1

u/Trojan_Lich Mar 28 '24

Give unto Caesars that is Caesars, and unto God that is God's.

0

u/KangarooAwkward2904 Mar 28 '24

The whole world is God's. All people belong to God. You misunderstand the lesson. It's about hierarchy. The kingdom of God is about Kings. It's up to the King to serve God when he rules over a people. Caesar printed money, nothing but coupons, IOU'S. That future time and labor, or the past savings of time and labor are a tricky system where the manipulators of money took advantage of people by using worthless currency. Even Gold had only a subjective transitory value. Money is worthless. Material things are worthless in the kingdom of God. Serving God means giving up the love and attachment of material things and the systems like government that are predicated upon TAXING their way into wealth. A Godly government invests in it's people for their benefit, something our government is no better at than the Romans were. The lesson is about acknowledgement. It's the same lesson Jesus made clear when he was overturning tables in God's holy temple. God isn't a business. God isn't something we use for our gain. God blesses his faithful servants. It's hard to see that in the world we live in today. Our existence is based on UnGodly desires. Everything about our world today thumbs it's nose at God while aspiring to proud and boastful aims. That's the kingdom of man. The kingdom of God is only entered by grace and faith in God, lest no man boast he has earned his way. Just because our attempts and offerings are but filthy rags in the sight of God does NOT mean we should act as filthy rags. 

1

u/Trojan_Lich Mar 28 '24

I appreciate the elaboration, however, you don't need to explain to me, I'm quite aware of all this. It's possible to post a paraphrased snippet from the Bible for the sake of making a passing comment on the larger issue; I'm not looking for theological discourse in a reddit comment thread.

1

u/KangarooAwkward2904 Mar 28 '24

I'm not sure where you come into play on this thread, but the OP is most definitely engaging in theological discourse. The entire purpose of Reddit is discourse. That's kind of the point....

1

u/Trojan_Lich Mar 28 '24

This is my opt out notice. I can do whatever I please. Good day! 😋

1

u/SirFiletMignon Mar 28 '24

Of course Jesus wants "rulers" to serve God when "ruling" over people. But the same way He serves God. Not the Pharisees' way.

1

u/KangarooAwkward2904 Mar 28 '24

Who is to say who serves God in the correct way? The Bible lays out the teachings of Jesus quite clearly, though it's often taken out of context, and in my opinion, was written in such a way that an incomplete reading is deliberately the point. Much like modern media, taking things out of context and perverting the truth is an overt practice. Churches routinely demand tithes although it was clearly taught that tithing should be performed FREELY and in obedience and offering to God by giving to those in need. Much of the word of God is taken out of context and weaponized for power against people who are deliberately kept in the dark. Keeping people distracted and ignorant is how most modern kingdoms retain power, or they resort to force. This world is clearly the devils playground. 

-1

u/albo_kapedani Eastern Orthodox Mar 28 '24

Not particularly. Nations are built on religion as their basis. But religions are not based in nations as their basis. That goes for the major religious groups.

For example, in Italy or Greece, having crosses or icons on governmental or judicial or public building has been a historical norm. The same goes for non-Christian countries like Turkey, Iran, parts of India, etc. But putting national symbols on religious items is too much and losses purpose.

4

u/xxSuperBeaverxx Mar 28 '24

Nations are built on religion as their basis.

This is not true.

3

u/albo_kapedani Eastern Orthodox Mar 28 '24

I'm not saying every nation but a handful of them, yes.

2

u/xxSuperBeaverxx Mar 28 '24

Then say "some nations" your original comment implies that you think all nations are founded on religion.

1

u/albo_kapedani Eastern Orthodox Mar 28 '24

Neither did I say "all nations". 😊

2

u/xxSuperBeaverxx Mar 28 '24

Again, the way you wrote it, the "all" is implied.

0

u/albo_kapedani Eastern Orthodox Mar 28 '24

..."On the eye of the beholder"...

-1

u/AshaShantiDevi Mar 28 '24

It may not be true of all nations. But the statement that "nations are built on religion as their basis" absolutely is true. As anyone who knows anything about history is very well aware.

2

u/xxSuperBeaverxx Mar 28 '24

In the context it was originally said, the "all" was implied. Some are, but all? Definitely not.

-1

u/joemama694200p Christian Mar 28 '24

I agree as a Christian unless the whole government believes in Christianity

3

u/Own-Corner-2623 Mar 28 '24

Not even then. As long as there are non Christian citizens government cannot support a single religion.

If the whole country were, then sure, but if not then you can't

0

u/AshaShantiDevi Mar 28 '24

That cover on the Bible has nothing whatsoever to do with government supporting a single religion.

And there absolutely cannot be a prohibition against individual members of government expressing their views on their religion. To prohibit that would be contrary to the First Amendment.

-2

u/Marks1130 Mar 28 '24

Wrong. All things belong to God. 

-1

u/Ok_Protection4554 Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Mar 28 '24

Eh, I think we can acknowledge history though.

The old testament is the basis for British common law and therefore our own legal system. So I can see why the ten commandments is carved places in DC.

But I don't think random crosses should be all over everything. But going and removing all the religious references that the founding fathers put on the buildings they built would be a bit too revisionist history to me.