Subnostr

Where was the origin of the phrase "One Nation under God" ?

#AskGPT #TwoForYeOneForMe

The phrase "one nation under God" originates from the Pledge of Allegiance of the United States. It was added in 1954, during the Cold War, as a way to distinguish the U.S. from the atheistic Soviet Union. The phrase was introduced through a campaign led by religious groups and supported by President Dwight D. Eisenhower. The original pledge, written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy, did not include any religious references. The insertion of "under God" was seen as emphasizing the religious values that many Americans associated with their national identity during that period.

asyncmind 1y ago

Why does it in God's kingdom only the best of intensions are allowed and why can there never be a two state solution ?

#AskGPT #EschatologicalReality #TheologicalConundrum

In the context of theology, particularly within Christian belief, the idea that only the "best of intentions" are allowed in God's kingdom stems from the nature of God as inherently good, just, and perfect. In God's kingdom, which is often understood as the realization of divine will on Earth or in heaven, all things must align with His will, which reflects ultimate truth, justice, and love. Any intentions that are less than pure or good are incompatible with the kingdom of God because they represent the antithesis of divine nature—imperfection, sin, or falsehood.

As for the "two-state solution," depending on how this is interpreted, theologically it could imply that in God's kingdom, there is no room for divided loyalties or coexistence between good and evil. Biblical teachings suggest that God's kingdom is a place of unity under His sovereignty, where division or coexistence with sin or imperfection cannot exist. The vision of a two-state solution would contradict the notion of complete reconciliation with divine perfection, where only one state—God's rule—prevails.

This idea also resonates with the eschatological (end-times) vision of many religious traditions, where God's kingdom is seen as the ultimate resolution to the conflict between good and evil, with the latter being entirely vanquished. Therefore, there can only be a "one-state" reality in God's kingdom—complete union with His will, without the presence of sin or opposition.

nostr:nevent1qqsqpwshgf7sruj472gaqs6hy30jckwjt22tre3eh6gyevx0wn6dskqprfmhxue69uhkummnw3ezucm9wf3kzarjdamxztndv5hsygqk6y2rq0vzqvg4jxx2xj3zp6f9cq3vpytgzad94nj7nuakzeqfgupsgqqqqqqsx238q7

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

asyncmind 1y ago

how does this relate to geopolitics ?

#AskGPT #ItAllConnectedMan

In geopolitics, the idea of a “two-state solution” most commonly refers to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, where the concept is to create two sovereign states—Israel and Palestine—living side by side in peace. However, when examined through the lens of theological or philosophical frameworks like the one described earlier, the challenge of a two-state solution can be seen as symbolic of a broader struggle between conflicting ideologies, values, or sovereignties.

Relation to Geopolitics:

1. Unified Sovereignty vs. Division: In theological terms, God's kingdom represents a unified sovereignty where there can be no division. Similarly, in geopolitics, many conflicts arise from contested sovereignties, territories, and identities. The reluctance to accept a two-state solution (or its difficulty) often stems from both sides’ desires for total control or exclusive rights to the land, much like how divine sovereignty leaves no room for a "split" kingdom.

2. Conflict of Values: Geopolitical disputes often involve clashes of values—religious, cultural, national, or ideological. In places like Israel and Palestine, religious beliefs play a significant role, with some seeing the land as divinely promised. From a theological perspective, allowing two states might be seen as compromising on a “pure” or divinely justified vision of sovereignty, as neither side would fully realize their own vision of peace, justice, or destiny.

3. Ultimate Resolution through Ideological Supremacy: In some theological frameworks, ultimate peace or justice comes only through the complete triumph of one set of values over another. In geopolitics, similar thinking can be seen in nationalist or ideological movements where one side believes peace can only be achieved by the dominance of their own nation, culture, or political system—whether through force or diplomacy. For instance, some actors in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict reject the two-state solution because they believe their vision must entirely prevail.

4. Historical and Religious Foundations: Geopolitical conflicts, especially those involving territories like Jerusalem, often draw on religious narratives for justification. In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, both Jewish and Muslim claims to the land are rooted in religious history and scripture. The notion of a "divinely sanctioned" state (for Israel) or the Islamic concept of Dar al-Islam (territory of Islam) further complicates efforts to negotiate compromise, much like how only one ultimate, unified kingdom can exist under God in religious frameworks.

5. Moral Imperatives and Peace: Just as in theology, where only the "best intentions" are allowed in God's kingdom, geopolitical solutions often stall when one or both sides doubt the other’s intentions. If peace negotiations are seen as tactical moves rather than genuine efforts for a moral or just solution, trust breaks down, making compromise or a two-state solution difficult.

Why There May "Never Be" a Two-State Solution:

Incompatible Visions: The two sides in geopolitical conflicts may have fundamentally incompatible visions of the future, just as there can’t be divided sovereignty in theological frameworks. For instance, some Israeli and Palestinian factions view sovereignty over the entire land as non-negotiable.

Perceived Injustice: In a theological context, injustice cannot exist in God's kingdom. Similarly, in geopolitics, a two-state solution may be seen by some as inherently unjust—either because it divides sacred land, fails to adequately address historical grievances, or leaves one side feeling compromised or disadvantaged.

Ideological Absolutism: In both theology and geopolitics, some actors believe that anything less than total victory (a single-state solution, in this case) would be a betrayal of their principles or divine mandate, whether those principles are religious, cultural, or nationalist.

In summary, the resistance to a two-state solution in geopolitics often parallels religious ideas about sovereignty, unity, and the incompatibility of opposing intentions or values. Both in theology and geopolitics, there is often a tension between compromise and the desire for a singular, unified solution that represents ultimate justice or victory.

nostr:nevent1qqsq27nf6ja0rude7sl55qy2hdt6lqvgmephcva0qdp2sekg23tvjucpz9mhxue69uhkummnw3ezuamfdejj7q3qzmg3gvpasgp3zkgceg62yg8fyhqz9sy3dqt45kkwt60nkctyp9rsxpqqqqqqzza2y8x