Should a Christian vote for a candidate who is pro-abortion, against helping babies aborted alive, for stem-cell research, pro-homosexual laws, believes in evolution, while believing in helping the poor? ::pondering::
There are folks who believe in the gospel accounts who will say no, some will say yes, and others will say Christians shouldn't vote. As for me, the Christian way is for limited government, as spelled out in the constitution, because the only thing the government is REALLY good at is killing folks and messing with their stuff. In short, I vote conservative/libertarian. There are Christians who vote differently. The thing is, the church began in a corner of an empire and questions about political matters were not asked of those seeking baptism. They shouldn't be asked now and they shouldn't be asked later in an attempt to kick someone out.
It's even more complicated because it's not only about voting...except for being opposed to helping babies who are born alive during batched abortions (which I'm pretty sure no one is ACTUALLY opposed to, vagaries of politics aside), for each of those views there are plenty of Christians who not only vote for but actually hold them. You could also make analogous lists of other characteristics targeting typical politicians from the other side of the aisle. It seems to me that Christianity is primarily about something wholly different than politics...so the two really don't mix well and a Christian will almost inevitably find himself holding his nose no matter for whom he votes.
: jonmower Mon Jun 08, 2009 - 15:00:23
It's even more complicated because it's not only about voting...except for being opposed to helping babies who are born alive during batched abortions (which I'm pretty sure no one is ACTUALLY opposed to, vagaries of politics aside),...
On March 30, 2001 Obama argued that the Illinois version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act was unconstitutional. He is a sick man.
http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST033001.pdf
: Lou Mon Jun 08, 2009 - 21:39:15
On March 30, 2001 Obama argued that the Illinois version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act was unconstitutional. He is a sick man.
http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST033001.pdf
that is just horrible. And then he votes "present". Sure, he'll slam the 'aye' votes...but he doesn't have the spine to vote 'nay'.
No, because God sees what you do, and nothing will be hidden from him on judgment day.
Politics gets me angry so I try to stay out of. Not much good can come out of so I do my best to take care of what happens in my house and leave the rest to God. No use getting upset about things that you have no control over.
: Lou Mon Jun 08, 2009 - 21:39:15
: jonmower Mon Jun 08, 2009 - 15:00:23
It's even more complicated because it's not only about voting...except for being opposed to helping babies who are born alive during batched abortions (which I'm pretty sure no one is ACTUALLY opposed to, vagaries of politics aside),...
On March 30, 2001 Obama argued that the Illinois version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act was unconstitutional. He is a sick man.
http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST033001.pdf
There is a difference between arguing a law is unconstitutional and morally correct.
A Christian, just like every other American, should vote for the candidate best suited for the job. The pickings have been getting slimmer and slimmer, and hopefully a strong third party will emerge next election.
love,
sopranette
: sopranette Sat Jun 13, 2009 - 05:34:19
A Christian, just like every other American, should vote for the candidate best suited for the job. The pickings have been getting slimmer and slimmer, and hopefully a strong third party will emerge next election.
love,
sopranette
It had better start emerging very rapidly or it ain't gonna happen.
: bereaniam Sun Jun 07, 2009 - 17:59:20
Should a Christian vote for a candidate who is pro-abortion, against helping babies aborted alive, for stem-cell research, pro-homosexual laws, believes in evolution, while believing in helping the poor? ::pondering::
Should a Christian vote for a candidate who supports limiting or denying access to the courts for wrongs, aiding the wealthy at the cost of the poor, who proclaims as friend and ally the nations who imprison, torture, and kill those whose only crime is to declare that they believe Jesus Christ is the son of God and that eternal life is only gained by following him, that believe goods made with the tears and sweat of labor of those imprisoned believers should be imported as if made here?
I'm feeling more and more that Christians should have nothing to do with any of this. Politics erodes the truth gene and makes any statement in support of a position, candidate, or ideology A-okay.
: bereaniam Sun Jun 07, 2009 - 17:59:20
Should a Christian vote for a candidate who is pro-abortion, against helping babies aborted alive, for stem-cell research, pro-homosexual laws, believes in evolution, while believing in helping the poor? ::pondering::
I don't. But I also wouldn't vote for a person who is pro-life, against embryonic stem-cell research, pro-traditional marriage laws, believes in intelligent design, while looking down on the poor and refusing to lift a finger to help them.
::wink::
: Arkstfan Sat Jun 13, 2009 - 10:11:48
: bereaniam Sun Jun 07, 2009 - 17:59:20
Should a Christian vote for a candidate who is pro-abortion, against helping babies aborted alive, for stem-cell research, pro-homosexual laws, believes in evolution, while believing in helping the poor? ::pondering::
Should a Christian vote for a candidate who supports limiting or denying access to the courts for wrongs, aiding the wealthy at the cost of the poor, who proclaims as friend and ally the nations who imprison, torture, and kill those whose only crime is to declare that they believe Jesus Christ is the son of God and that eternal life is only gained by following him, that believe goods made with the tears and sweat of labor of those imprisoned believers should be imported as if made here?
I didn't read the responses to the OP before reading my own, but...ditto.
Only if they could be certified as Fox News listeners. rofl
Seriously I don't believe either party is empathetic enough to the plight of the poor, so decisions must be made on other criteria. I believe certain governmental decisions that appear to be sympathetic to the poor actually are detrimental to them.
If you think some of their decisions are detrimental, you say, "So I'll ignore that topic and judge only by other issues?" That doesn't make sense. It's like saying that if you thought both parties were making decisions detrimental to national security you'd just leave that one off the table and look at how they handle fleet car purchases instead.
James, I'm not entirely sure of what you just said. All I'm saying is rhetoric about being concerned about the poor may not translate into help. And rhetoric about creating opportunities for the poor might seem calloused to some, but might actually be more helpful than the one with the concerned rhetoric.
I will use a tired old analogy but a good one. The one who gives a man a fish to eat everyday for 30 years is probably not as compassionate as the one who teaches a man to fish and feed himself for the rest of his life.
Both political parties can do better and in my opinion one is not much worse or better than the other in the helping the poor category. One has been better in the rhetoric and the demonizing of the other side as selfish.
I have been legitimately poor more years of my life than I have been not poor. And the years I have not been poor, I have been a whole lot closer to the poor side of the spectrum than I have been the rich side. I am all for helping the helpless and to assist them in not being helpless. I believe some have enslaved the poor by keeping people helpless and dependent, all the while with the disguise of being the true compassionate ones.
: Jaime Sat Jun 13, 2009 - 09:25:05
: sopranette Sat Jun 13, 2009 - 05:34:19
A Christian, just like every other American, should vote for the candidate best suited for the job. The pickings have been getting slimmer and slimmer, and hopefully a strong third party will emerge next election.
love,
sopranette
It had better start emerging very rapidly or it ain't gonna happen.
I'm doing my best! And you know it's a lot easier to talk about third parties with Atheists and hippies, because conservative Christians will stick with the Republican party no matter what, it seems. A lot of people I talk to feel just as strongly about the Constitution and the right to life as I do. I admit I was pleasantly suprised by this.
love,
sopranette
: sopranette Sat Jun 13, 2009 - 14:41:20
: Jaime Sat Jun 13, 2009 - 09:25:05
: sopranette Sat Jun 13, 2009 - 05:34:19
A Christian, just like every other American, should vote for the candidate best suited for the job. The pickings have been getting slimmer and slimmer, and hopefully a strong third party will emerge next election.
love,
sopranette
It had better start emerging very rapidly or it ain't gonna happen.
I'm doing my best! And you know it's a lot easier to talk about third parties with Atheists and hippies, because conservative Christians will stick with the Republican party no matter what, it seems. A lot of people I talk to feel just as strongly about the Constitution and the right to life as I do. I admit I was pleasantly suprised by this.
love,
sopranette
I don't think that's true. I would vote for a 3rd party candidate that had a chance to win. The trouble is 99% of the time they don't have a chance. Christians need to understand that a party of 100% evangelical Christians couldn't win dog catcher in a medium sized city. We don't represent much of the population. Coalition is the key. We have to vote for folks that we agree with MOST of the time. We will never fill a single office at any level if we wait until we get the perfect candidate. 70% agreement is a good level to shoot for. Heck Ronald Reagan just barely beat that with me.
I didn't agree with McCain but maybe 60% of his stances, but compared to virtually 0% with Obama, it was a no brainer. I agreed with Ron Paul probably 0n 90%, but the 10% we disagreed on was a deal breaker for me, plus no way in H. E. double hockey sticks was he going to get nominated.
To win elections we HAVE to join forces with folks we don't agree with on everything or we will have to endure being governed by folks we don't agree with at all.
Isn't that a catch 22? You won't vote for a party that doesn't seem to have a chance at winning, but the reason they don't have a chance of winning is because no one is voting for them? Parties need to build up, and that takes campaigning and voting. I'm still hoping many of the third parties will get together, put egos aside, and concentrate on collectively putting a sound plan for the future of this country on the table. So I'm an idealist; that's better than being a cynic. As I've said some time ago, I don't buy into the Nirvana fallacy; that is, there will never be a perfect candidate, there will never be a perfect plan, but we sure could do a lot better.
love,
sopranette
The reason they don't have a chance is organization and money. Get those two things and yes a third party has a chance at winning. Being right has little to do with it, unfortunately.
Until that happens, reforming the old GOP is probably more feasible. But yes, a third party that is viable would be great. I voted for Perot in 1992 (helping Clinton get elected, by the way.) The only 3rd party candidate that had a snowballs chance for a while. (He used a lot of his own fortune.)
TV time is where it's at. TV can make Satan himself look like Sherrif Andy Taylor of Mayberry. Without money and media, Jesus himself wouldn't have a chance.
What about the guy who sees the poor man fishing, dumps sludge in his fishing spot, then criticizes him for not catching as many fish as the corporate fisherman upriver?
: marc Sat Jun 13, 2009 - 15:15:34
What about the guy who sees the poor man fishing, dumps sludge in his fishing spot, then criticizes him for not catching as many fish as the corporate fisherman upriver?
He's a slime ball! That ain't
EMPOWERING anyone, anymore than dumping a mercury infested fish at the man's doorstep everyday.
Most of the calls I see for a "viable third party" seem to assume that the party would be conservative in nature.
What if the "viable third party" was the "Flower Children Liberal Progressive Party" or some such?
I suppose then we would be hearing a call for a viable "fourth party".
If conservatives want to right the ship in the GOP, the focus should NOT be on Presidential politics - it should be on supporting conservative candidates for state legislatures and congress - and most importantly, supporting conservative party leadership from the county level upward.
It worked in the 70's...
Of course OD, in my view, the reason that so many Republicans stayed home or jumped ship in recent elections is because of about 20 or so congressmen and women didn't stick with their principals and gave the other side what they wanted. Heck if a few more Arlen Specters will resign or change parties, we might be back to where we used to be. Instead of embracing or scratching our heads in dismay at Dem wannabes, encourage them to leave and let's get on with conservative business. OR we can recreate the wheel from scratch.
::frown::
PS and I ain't just talking social conservatism. Fiscal conservatism or specifically the lack thereof is why the GOP lost in 2006 and 2008.
Plus I whole heartedly support Ralph Nader and the Green Party's effort to siphon off votes from the Democrat party.
Without a doubt government makes problems worse.
Reagan era we shut mental institutions and reduce mental health benefits. Thousands end up on the streets and suddenly drugs and crime become huge problems in large part because of mentally ill people "self-medicating". We get tough on crime and create three strike laws but don't like paying for the extra prisons so three strikers who can't be released often on non-violent charges get to stay in while over-crowding is addressed with releasing more dangerous prisoners. Tell poor kids that education is the way out but the average Pell Grant is now about half what it was 20 years ago in spending power because Wall Street pressured Congress to make loans the solution to education and of course the ever popular tax credit but no university will accept a promise of a tax credit in April for tuition in August.
: sopranette Sat Jun 13, 2009 - 14:55:11
As I've said some time ago, I don't buy into the Nirvana fallacy; that is, there will never be a perfect candidate, there will never be a perfect plan, but we sure could do a lot better.
In my opinion we could have done much better with a man I could agree with 60% of the time rather than moan and groan about a man being elected I agree with 0% of the time.
Elections are won by coalitions not candidates I agree with always.
Two choices
1. Agree always with a candidate and lose to a candidate you never agree with.
2. Agree most of the time or the majority of the time and have a good chance to win.
I really wish it was the best man or woman always wins, but it's just not that way. It's every bit as much about trying to keep the very person OUT of office that you can't abide as it is about putting in the very one you agree with.It's kinda like American Idol. The best talent hardly ever wins, but the one with the most votes always does.
: Arkstfan Sat Jun 13, 2009 - 15:49:41
Without a doubt government makes problems worse.
Reagan era we shut mental institutions and reduce mental health benefits. Thousands end up on the streets and suddenly drugs and crime become huge problems in large part because of mentally ill people "self-medicating".
That goes back to at least 1975 (http://books.google.com/books?id=0aqB_6tyM-IC&pg=PA23&lpg=PA23&dq=court+rulings+on+mental+institutions&source=bl&ots=VmKsofF67x&sig=uhIiCNkTDh8BjEDLHHa6OnAWsMI&hl=en&ei=44k0StqXHoWjtgfIxPz4Dg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8) from what I've read. It was court decisions of lawsuits on behalf of folks who were being tossed into the nervous hospital against their will.
: OldDad Sat Jun 13, 2009 - 15:25:05
What if the "viable third party" was the "Flower Children Liberal Progressive Party" or some such?
We already have that party. They put Obama in office.
love,
sopranette
: Mere Nick Sun Jun 14, 2009 - 00:32:34
: Arkstfan Sat Jun 13, 2009 - 15:49:41
Without a doubt government makes problems worse.
Reagan era we shut mental institutions and reduce mental health benefits. Thousands end up on the streets and suddenly drugs and crime become huge problems in large part because of mentally ill people "self-medicating".
That goes back to at least 1975 (http://books.google.com/books?id=0aqB_6tyM-IC&pg=PA23&lpg=PA23&dq=court+rulings+on+mental+institutions&source=bl&ots=VmKsofF67x&sig=uhIiCNkTDh8BjEDLHHa6OnAWsMI&hl=en&ei=44k0StqXHoWjtgfIxPz4Dg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8) from what I've read. It was court decisions of lawsuits on behalf of folks who were being tossed into the nervous hospital against their will.
Started the ball rolling and someone figured out we could save money...
: marcI'm feeling more and more that Christians should have nothing to do with any of this.
Nothing?
You're feeling more and more that Christians should have ... nothing ... to do with politics.
I hope you know the definition of the word and are prepared to defend your position, because that is one of the more jaw-dropping things I think I have ever read.
Nothing.
No voting?
You're feeling more and more that Christians should not vote.
I don't understand how anyone who is a Christian could "support" Obama or McCain (or Bush for that matter). A lot of Christians want change in this country and the world to come through a political party and the government, rather than through Jesus Christ. And that's the bottom line.
They may not ultimately think this is the case, but their actions betray them.
: poptart Sun Jun 14, 2009 - 09:18:12
: marcI'm feeling more and more that Christians should have nothing to do with any of this.
Nothing?
You're feeling more and more that Christians should have ... nothing ... to do with politics.
I hope you know the definition of the word and are prepared to defend your position, because that is one of the more jaw-dropping things I think I have ever read.
You really need to get out more, then. This is hardly a new or radical view.
You're feeling more and more that Christians should not vote.
Yes or no?
Yes.
Why do you advocate Christians not exercising their God-given and law-given right to be represented in society?
: OldDad Sat Jun 13, 2009 - 15:25:05
Most of the calls I see for a "viable third party" seem to assume that the party would be conservative in nature.
What if the "viable third party" was the "Flower Children Liberal Progressive Party" or some such?
Isn't that the Green Party? Other than a narcissistic mayor in New Paltz, I don't know, do they still exist?
Why do you advocate Christians not exercising their God-given and law-given right to be represented in society?
I don't. I simply am beginning to believe that voting for a candidate who will be motivated by self-interest and will perpetrate one or the other type of evil (thus making us complicit in this evil) is not the best way for a Christian to be represented in society.
Polls show that people too often think of politics and Christianity as being hand-in-hand. I don't think this represents us or Christ well. Perhaps withdrawing from Earthly politics would allow us to reclaim Christ's political vision of our being part of the incoming of a subversive kingdom, helping bring forth God's will on Earth as it is in Heaven instead of subverting this vision to a political view fomented in D.C.
But I'm not dogmatic about this; it's an evolving philosophy.
: marc Sun Jun 14, 2009 - 21:03:29
Why do you advocate Christians not exercising their God-given and law-given right to be represented in society?
I don't.
You just said you DO advocate Christians not voting.
And now you say you
don't advocate Christians not voting ... but your further words indicate that you DO.
lol
You said you are feeling more and more that Christians should have .... (your word) NOTHING ... to do with politics.
Should Christians vote or not?
Yes or no?
Take your position.
*sigh*
I should know better than to try to communicate with you.
You asked two different questions. Voting is not only not the only way to be represented in society, it is, in reality, one of the least effective.
Christians are best represented in society by following Christ.
As I said, I'm not dogmatic on this. I'm not sure that's a concept you understand.
: marc Sun Jun 14, 2009 - 20:29:57
: poptart Sun Jun 14, 2009 - 09:18:12
: marcI'm feeling more and more that Christians should have nothing to do with any of this.
Nothing?
You're feeling more and more that Christians should have ... nothing ... to do with politics.
I hope you know the definition of the word and are prepared to defend your position, because that is one of the more jaw-dropping things I think I have ever read.
You really need to get out more, then. This is hardly a new or radical view.
Eph 6:12 For we wrestle...against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high [places].
You can answer the question now, marc.
You said that you're feeling more and more that Christians should have ... NOTHING ... to do with politics.
So should, in your opinion, Christians vote or not?
You seem to be having a problem standing by the word (NOTHING) which YOU chose to use.
Or perhaps you are loathe to ADMIT that someone might use a word and not intend for it to be taken by it's absolute literal definition as stated in Webster?
Yes, because common sense lets people realize that words typed on a screen are limited in what they are able to communicate, and a word used in this kind of forum is often used to convey a BROAD understanding of a situation.
Your ... NOTHING ... didn't really mean absolutely NOTHING, and only a fool would ascribe such a meaning to it.
Pretty much it, huh?
Unless, of course, you somehow REALLY think Christians ought not vote and instead ought to willingly surrender all of society over to the idol worshippers.
lol
: Gary Sun Jun 14, 2009 - 09:59:18
I don't understand how anyone who is a Christian could "support" Obama or McCain (or Bush for that matter). A lot of Christians want change in this country and the world to come through a political party and the government, rather than through Jesus Christ. And that's the bottom line.
They may not ultimately think this is the case, but their actions betray them.
That's because many who wear the label Christian don't care one flip about their neighbor. They care nothing about changing hearts they just want to outlaw what bothers them, they want low taxes and no government entanglement unless of course its fattens their wallet or suits their interests.
: marc Sun Jun 14, 2009 - 21:57:59
*sigh*
I should know better than to try to communicate with you.
You asked two different questions. Voting is not only not the only way to be represented in society, it is, in reality, one of the least effective.
Christians are best represented in society by following Christ.
As I said, I'm not dogmatic on this. I'm not sure that's a concept you understand.
Your thinking that maybe the Christian thing to do is to abstain isn't some whacked out idea, Marc. (Even if it was, so what?) I have three kids going to a school named after a guy who thought the very same thing, David Lipscomb.
It's among the dumbest things I've heard.
Would you care to cite Scripture which you imagine backs the idea that Christians ought not vote, let alone even engage in any "political" activity at all?
: poptart Mon Jun 15, 2009 - 09:34:14
It's among the dumbest things I've heard.
Would you care to cite Scripture which you imagine backs the idea that Christians ought not vote, let alone even engage in any "political" activity at all?
"My kingdom is not of this world" John 18:36
How about one scripture where Jesus or any disciple went to the Roman Senate or Caesar to change government policy? The closest we get is Paul exercising his right as a Roman citizen to appeal a possible death sentence to Caesar and then not change the law but arguing it doesn't fit what he has done.
Your dismissive and rather rude response helps illustrate one argument that is made against Christian involvement in politics. Once clothed in politics we become debased in the desire to win without regard to cost. We've seen several people humiliated when their sins came to light because they became more interested in personal gain and access to power than the kingdom.
Politics by its nature requires us to weigh sin and evil and choose which particular sin and evil we desire to endorse. You don't get to vote with an * by the vote and you don't get to attach an * to a campaign contribution explaining you only support the Christian values and reject the offensive secular. While we are weighing out our own personal view of relativity how does it mesh with the sermon on the mount?
I believe Lipscomb took some of his view from Paul's advice to Timothy:
"Suffer hardship with me, as a good soldier of Christ Jesus. No soldier in active service entangles himself in the affairs of everyday life, so that he may please the one who enlisted him as a soldier. Also if anyone competes as an athlete, he does not win the prize unless he competes according to the rules. The hard-working farmer ought to be the first to receive his share of the crops. Consider what I say, for the Lord will give you understanding in everything."
(II Timothy 2:3-7 NASB)
He believed the governmental/political affairs of this world to be so temporal as to be a sideshow in which we need not get involved. And as Nick said, it's hardly an unknown or out of whack idea among Christians.
What about the patriots of the United States of America? They were Christians and escaped Tyranny? Were they wrong? I will tell you I think not.
: lightshineon Mon Jun 15, 2009 - 10:09:15
What about the patriots of the United States of America? They were Christians and escaped Tyranny? Were they wrong? I will tell you I think not.
Jefferson didn't believe any of the Biblical miracles happened including the resurrection of Jesus and helped defeat a Virginia resolution (pushed by Patrick Henry) that would acknowledge Jesus as savior of the land. More than half of the Virgnia Assembly was willing to acknowledge God or Providence but unwilling to acknowledge Jesus.
: Arkstfan Mon Jun 15, 2009 - 10:15:31
: lightshineon Mon Jun 15, 2009 - 10:09:15
What about the patriots of the United States of America? They were Christians and escaped Tyranny? Were they wrong? I will tell you I think not.
Jefferson didn't believe any of the Biblical miracles happened including the resurrection of Jesus and helped defeat a Virginia resolution (pushed by Patrick Henry) that would acknowledge Jesus as savior of the land. More than half of the Virgnia Assembly was willing to acknowledge God or Providence but unwilling to acknowledge Jesus.
I am talking about the Minute men, the militia, the soldier -slash farmer. I do believe our country was founded on Christian principals; in fact,there is a wonderful thread that proves it on this thread. The question though we they wrong in your opinion to break from tyranny?
From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Lipscomb#Pacifist_and_anarchist_beliefs):
When Lipscomb was discovered by radical libertarian scholars, some such as Prof. Edward Stringham noted that Lipscomb had independently questioned common assumptions that
1. Governments need to make laws.
2. Governments are created for the public good.
3. Democracy is for the common good.
Further, Lipscomb argued that
1. Governments may seek to increase disorder to expand their power.
2. People should abstain from voting, instead seeking change through persuasive and non-coercive methods.
3. Peaceful civilization is not dependent on the state.
4. Governments are created for the benefit of the rulers, not the people.
While all of these arguments are common today in anarchist thought, Lipscomb may have been the first to bring them all together, at least in America and likely preceded only by William Godwin in England and Proudhon in France. The radical libertarians in America from Lysander Spooner to Murray Rothbard and beyond developed and popularized these arguments after Lipscomb did, but with no knowledge of Lipscomb. Lipscomb's theory of freedom must be understood as a radical statement positing the almost absolute separation of church and state as the only true guarantor of the freedom of religion.
Like Marc, I'm ambivalent about whether Christians should or shouldn't participate in government (I respect those that do and those that don't and don't think it is an issue of which is right or wrong but rather which is most wise or most in sync with the will of God/way of Christ). However, I'm certain that the cause of Christ is not primarily accomplished by government, so I think that takes us pretty far towards realizing that issues of government
should probably be relatively low down on the list of everyday concerns for most Christians.
On Civil Government: Its Origin, Mission and Destiny and the Christian's Relation to It (http://www.amazon.com/Civil-Government-Christians-Christian-Discipleship/dp/0974479616/)
by David Lipscomb
: lightshineon Mon Jun 15, 2009 - 10:23:27
I am talking about the Minute men, the militia, the soldier -slash farmer. I do believe our country was founded on Christian principals; in fact,there is a wonderful thread that proves it on this thread. The question though we they wrong in your opinion to break from tyranny?
Look at the first century. The Jews were suffering under the tyranny of the Romans and expected a messiah to come and lead them to military victory. Jesus made it clear that political and earthly freedom were mostly beside the point to the kingdom of God and obviously did nothing at all in the direction of violent overthrow of Roman tyranny. Following his example, his followers voluntarily gave up their rights and even suffered unjust death.
I would ask whether or not the message of the gospel is adequately summarized by the following: Beat your plowshares into swords and violently overthrow those who reign in tyranny over you, killing as many of your enemies as necessary to achieve your freedom.
No it is not. Therefore, I would say that while the patriots may have been right by earthly standards to revolt, what they were doing was largely irrelevant to the kingdom of God and therefore are not particularly relevant to determining what is the
best way for a Christian to do God's work in this world.
The US was going to break from Britain once the economy started moving it was inevitable. If you had a question it would take two months to send the question to England, if it were answered same day it would require another two months to get the response.
I am unsure as to what religious reason was used to break from the crown?
Each colony had its own level of religious protection or restriction and those remained in place after the revolution and state sponsored churches remained until as late as 1833.
It economically made sense but as a religious decision? Not so sure. In less than 60 years Quakers and Methodists in the UK gained enough political power to outlaw slavery. It would be another 32 years and at the point of a gun barrel before it would happen here.
: jonmower Mon Jun 15, 2009 - 10:46:11
: lightshineon Mon Jun 15, 2009 - 10:23:27
I am talking about the Minute men, the militia, the soldier -slash farmer. I do believe our country was founded on Christian principals; in fact,there is a wonderful thread that proves it on this thread. The question though we they wrong in your opinion to break from tyranny?
Look at the first century. The Jews were suffering under the tyranny of the Romans and expected a messiah to come and lead them to military victory. Jesus made it clear that political and earthly freedom were mostly beside the point to the kingdom of God and obviously did nothing at all in the direction of violent overthrow of Roman tyranny. Following his example, his followers voluntarily gave up their rights and even suffered unjust death.
I would ask whether or not the message of the gospel is adequately summarized by the following: Beat your plowshares into swords and violently overthrow those who reign in tyranny over you, killing as many of your enemies as necessary to achieve your freedom.
No it is not. Therefore, I would say that while the patriots may have been right by earthly standards to revolt, what they were doing was largely irrelevant to the kingdom of God and therefore are not particularly relevant to determining what is the best way for a Christian to do God's work in this world.
OK, I will agree with you on the misunderstanding of the Messiahs role, by the people of that day, but, that was peoples expectations of the earthly Messiah. I will ask you jon if the Civil war was wrong? It also freed the slaves, and it was an internal overthrow. Was Cornelius considered a bad man, though he was a centerion? I have to find this in the OT, but was reading awhile back, where the enemy had wondered into Israel's camp, and, the king, was told by God, not to kill them but to feed them and give them something to drink. He told them though to fight them on the battlefield. Just because Jesus did not come at that point, to overthrow Rome, that does not set a precedence for not living under Tyranny. I also will disagree, that the United States, and its Christian people have not played a role in spreading the gospel. I was talking to a Chinese woman this last Saturday. She was so grateful to be in America, she said " I had to come here to find God." She was so grateful for freedom to be a Baptist. She was more patriotic than I am even.
: lightshineon Mon Jun 15, 2009 - 11:45:39
I will ask you jon if the Civil war was wrong? It also freed the slaves, and it was an internal overthrow. Was Cornelius considered a bad man, though he was a centerion?
I'm not arguing about right or wrong in politics and war (Civil War, revolutionary war), etc. You can bring up WWII, 100 Years War, whatever and I'll still maintain that such conflicts over earthly sovereignty are not at the heart of the gospel. I'm saying politics is about the workings of earthly kingdoms and that earthly kingdoms, earthly freedoms, etc. were not centrally relevant to the mission of Christ on this earth and, therefore, (I assume) are mostly irrelevant to those of us who continue to attempt to accomplish His mission on earth. I certainly won't judge those of us that attempt to use government (for example) as a tool to promote justice, compassion, etc. (concepts that are certainly close to the heart of God) on this earth...but I have some sympathy with the view that this is not necessarily the most effective way to do so.
The gospel is about loving your enemies, turning the other cheek, voluntarily giving up your rights, being willing to suffer persecution unjustly as a testimony to Christ, etc. Of course, I don't expect earthly governments and political revolutionaries to adopt these principles...but neither do I assume that good and desirable features of earthly kingdoms (freedom, democracy, etc.) are central aspects of Christianity. Earthly and heavenly kingdoms certainly have some impact on and engagement with each other, but each is mostly about something unrelated to the other. Therefore, I can understand why someone might choose to devote himself entirely to the heavenly kingdom and not make any attempt to make use of the tools of earthly ones.
We can't know if the Civil War would have been avoided had the US not revolted from the United Kingdom. Maybe it gets abolished 30 years earlier by law rather than violence. Maybe if there were armed resistance it is quashed quickly in an American South that has fewer means of production in the 1830's.
Maybe the US as part of the Commonwealth joins World War I sooner and defeats the Kaiser before the plot to de-stablize Russia is successful and Russia never becomes a communist state and Stalin never kills millions. Maybe a quicker end to WWI avoids the harsh treaty that sets the stage for Hitler.
But maybe it all turns out worse.
I watched "The Postman" an old Kevin Consner movie on netflix, it was really, really, good and a thinking movie. Loving your enemy, and choosing to defend the weak, helpless such as; the Jews and the civil war, or defending your freedom is not ungodly. I mentioned Cornelius, a centerion was called a good man. Who said something like this, help me with it. ??? For evil to prosper, all it takes is foe good men to do nothing. Not an exact quote, but someone knows it. America is a different political system than Rome, or ancient Israel. Actually God did use Constantine, a Christian to restore things in his timing, and through war, and the building of roads. Early Christians obeyed the Government, as far as it did not conflict with God. They would not worship Cesare, rescued babies left to die, met in secret. Christ never ment us to take things to unhealthy extreames. That is unbalanced, because have you ever heard of someone being so heavenly minded that they were of no earthly good? Love your neighbor as yourself is another command. If you do not protect your neighbor against evil do you love them? In Revelation, you see many wars sanctioned by God. There has to be a balance of structer in a society. Sorry about spellig errors my keyboard is going crazy. hard to post things also.
The patriots were fallible humans like us, doing the best they could with the light they had, to borrow a term from their period. Ultimately, no matter what you think of their actions, they simply aren't the standard of what true/best/ethical/moral.
: James. Mon Jun 15, 2009 - 15:49:22
The patriots were fallible humans like us, doing the best they could with the light they had, to borrow a term from their period. Ultimately, no matter what you think of their actions, they simply aren't the standard of what true/best/ethical/moral.
Really? When did courage, integrity and desire for liberty go out of style? I respectfully disagree with you James. ::tippinghat:: I would not enjoy a comcentration camp vaction? Would you? Again forgive errors, stupid laptop.
: lightshineon Mon Jun 15, 2009 - 14:19:42
Christ never ment us to take things to unhealthy extreames. That is unbalanced, because have you ever heard of someone being so heavenly minded that they were of no earthly good? Love your neighbor as yourself is another command. If you do not protect your neighbor against evil do you love them?
I disagree...Jesus and many of his followers took it to a very unhealthy extreme of submitting to excruciating deaths to honor God. As I've already mentioned, I'm not engaging in an argument about the "rights and wrongs" of "just" wars and the like. I'm profoundly conflicted on that subject myself. You may be right that much "greater good" is achieved through violence and revolution and the like and that some of it may be part of God's plan. What I'm objecting to is the conflation of the goals, means, and methods of earthly kingdoms with those of the heavenly one and the apparent assumption that the actions of noble Christians are necessarily Christ-like...and most of all that actions that may be noble, courageous, etc. but are the polar extreme of the example set by Jesus can somehow be construed as Christ-like.
: Arkstfan Mon Jun 15, 2009 - 09:57:26
: poptart Mon Jun 15, 2009 - 09:34:14
It's among the dumbest things I've heard.
Would you care to cite Scripture which you imagine backs the idea that Christians ought not vote, let alone even engage in any "political" activity at all?
"My kingdom is not of this world" John 18:36
How about one scripture where Jesus or any disciple went to the Roman Senate or Caesar to change government policy? The closest we get is Paul exercising his right as a Roman citizen to appeal a possible death sentence to Caesar and then not change the law but arguing it doesn't fit what he has done.
Christ's Kingdom is not of this world.
Yes, I agree. lol
And so??
Your Scripture ... FAILS ... to support the view that Christians ought not vote or engage in any political activity at all.
You've simply latched onto a weird idea, chosen to run with it, and yanked a Scripture out of the Bible
try (feebly) to support it.
Christians thinking that they should surrender their right to vote is moronic at best.
Why would I need to show you Scripture where Jesus or any disciple went to the Roman Senate or Caesar to change government policy?
Did I ever assert any such a thing???
Nope, never.
Don't toss things out and try to connect them to me.
It's a highly disingenous move on your part, and it won't divert attention away from the fact that you are standing in support of a VERY strange idea.
I said Christians should not forfeit their God-given and law-given right to vote.
That's what I said.
And that saying they
should do that is among the dumbest things ever uttered.
Do you imagine the country and people will be better off if Christians forfeit their votes and the land is TOTALLY taken over by idol worshippers?
Good grief.
: lightshineon Mon Jun 15, 2009 - 15:56:50
: James. Mon Jun 15, 2009 - 15:49:22
The patriots were fallible humans like us, doing the best they could with the light they had, to borrow a term from their period. Ultimately, no matter what you think of their actions, they simply aren't the standard of what true/best/ethical/moral.
Really? When did courage, integrity and desire for liberty go out of style? I respectfully disagree with you James. ::tippinghat:: I would not enjoy a comcentration camp vaction? Would you? Again forgive errors, stupid laptop.
Um, with which do you disagree?
A. The patriots were human.
B. The patriots were not Jesus (because he's the only true standard of what's true/best/ethical/moral to the Christian).
Some interesting thoughts. I have to admit that whenever I seem about to take the plunge into full pacifism, I'm confronted with something like the Holocaust.
I don't know the answer. I think that all we can do is follow God first and not confuse His kingdom with our country. If there wasn't some right accomplished through secular means, then there wouldn't be the temptation to trust in civil government.
I'm not even sure what that means.
So what's your take, marc?? lol
You're feeling more and more that Christians should have nothing to do with politics, or that Christians should have something to do with politics?
If you have children, what are you going to teach them?
They should have something or nothing (your word) to do with politics?
When confronted with an issue where a decision which needs to be made, most men make a decision.
: poptart Mon Jun 15, 2009 - 19:31:42
So what's your take, marc?? lol
You're feeling more and more that Christians should have nothing to do with politics, or that Christians should have something to do with politics?
If you have children, what are you going to teach them?
They should have something or nothing (your word) to do with politics?
When confronted with an issue where a decision which needs to be made, most men make a decision.
I think Christians need to put Christ and his kingdom first, instead of politics and an earthly kingdom.
: Gary Mon Jun 15, 2009 - 19:44:53
: poptart Mon Jun 15, 2009 - 19:31:42
So what's your take, marc?? lol
You're feeling more and more that Christians should have nothing to do with politics, or that Christians should have something to do with politics?
If you have children, what are you going to teach them?
They should have something or nothing (your word) to do with politics?
When confronted with an issue where a decision which needs to be made, most men make a decision.
I think Christians need to put Christ and his kingdom first, instead of politics and an earthly kingdom.
That doesn't necessarily translate into abstaining from politics, anymore than we should abstain from our means of making a living.
: Jaime Mon Jun 15, 2009 - 20:13:55
That doesn't necessarily translate into abstaining from politics, anymore than we should abstain from our means of making a living.
To me an important question is whether or not the explicit and in-your-face participation of Christians in politics tends (overall) to mask or reveal the gospel message in the eyes non-believers. Personally, I think that often it tends to mask it...that the stink of politics rubs off on a practice of Christianity that is too often conflated with politics. Therefore, I also wonder whether or not it would be better for Christians to disengage from politics. I'm not really thinking in terms of voting (since that is private anyway), but rather the more public aspects of the partisan battle royal.
I would hope Christians would be the first to speak up on issues that affect Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness as well as religious freedoms, etc. Yes, if being politically engaged harms our witness, of course we should do our best to avoid those situations. I am the poster child of letting my mouth overload my witness. Some things are not worth losing our cool. Some ARE worth shouting over, in my opinion. Not near as many as I demonstrate sometimes.
I have hopes that "Gotcha" politics will subside, but it doesn't look good for the near future. To me it all began with the humilation of Watergate then kinda got it's second wind during Reagan's presidency and continued back and forth until Clinton was impeached. That ratcheted up the game. Bush was a magnet of partisanship and had a supportive cast in Congress, and now Obama is just as much a partisan magnet with a supportive cast in Congress.
I long for the days of Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill. At the time we all thought partisanship was hopelessly over the top. We couldn't even see the top then!
: GaryI think Christians need to put Christ and his kingdom first, instead of politics and an earthly kingdom.
True, I agree, Gary.
Nearly all here would nod in agreement at your comment.
But I'm still trying to get marc to give his take.
He said he's feeling Christians ought not have ... ANYTHING ... to do with politics.
This includes voting, by the terminology which HE chose to use.
I'm simply wanting him to verify the remarkable assertion he made that Christians ought not vote.
So far he dodges.
: Jaime Mon Jun 15, 2009 - 20:47:12
I would hope Christians would be the first to speak up on issues that affect Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness as well as religious freedoms, etc. Yes, if being politically engaged harms our witness, of course we should do our best to avoid those situations. I am the poster child of letting my mouth overload my witness. Some things are not worth losing our cool. Some ARE worth shouting over, in my opinion. Not near as many as I demonstrate sometimes.
I have hopes that "Gotcha" politics will subside, but it doesn't look good for the near future. To me it all began with the humilation of Watergate then kinda got it's second wind during Reagan's presidency and continued back and forth until Clinton was impeached. That ratcheted up the game. Bush was a magnet of partisanship and had a supportive cast in Congress, and now Obama is just as much a partisan magnet with a supportive cast in Congress.
I long for the days of Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill. At the time we all thought partisanship was hopelessly over the top. We couldn't even see the top then!
I don't think the question was whether or not Christians should speak out, but whether or not politics is the best megaphone.
: Jaime Mon Jun 15, 2009 - 20:13:55
: Gary Mon Jun 15, 2009 - 19:44:53
: poptart Mon Jun 15, 2009 - 19:31:42
So what's your take, marc?? lol
You're feeling more and more that Christians should have nothing to do with politics, or that Christians should have something to do with politics?
If you have children, what are you going to teach them?
They should have something or nothing (your word) to do with politics?
When confronted with an issue where a decision which needs to be made, most men make a decision.
I think Christians need to put Christ and his kingdom first, instead of politics and an earthly kingdom.
That doesn't necessarily translate into abstaining from politics, anymore than we should abstain from our means of making a living.
Did you see me use the word "abstain?" Clearly many Christians, both politically liberal and politically conservative, shirk their responsiblity as Christians, and focus on the earthly instead of spiritual.
: James. Mon Jun 15, 2009 - 20:58:21
: Jaime Mon Jun 15, 2009 - 20:47:12
I would hope Christians would be the first to speak up on issues that affect Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness as well as religious freedoms, etc. Yes, if being politically engaged harms our witness, of course we should do our best to avoid those situations. I am the poster child of letting my mouth overload my witness. Some things are not worth losing our cool. Some ARE worth shouting over, in my opinion. Not near as many as I demonstrate sometimes.
I have hopes that "Gotcha" politics will subside, but it doesn't look good for the near future. To me it all began with the humilation of Watergate then kinda got it's second wind during Reagan's presidency and continued back and forth until Clinton was impeached. That ratcheted up the game. Bush was a magnet of partisanship and had a supportive cast in Congress, and now Obama is just as much a partisan magnet with a supportive cast in Congress.
I long for the days of Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill. At the time we all thought partisanship was hopelessly over the top. We couldn't even see the top then!
I don't think the question was whether or not Christians should speak out, but whether or not politics is the best megaphone.
Agreed. Preaching Christ, and Him crucified and risen, and patterning one's life after Christ would do far more good, than voting for one individual from two parties that are ultimately taking us to the same place.
I haven't been in on this thread that I remember, but if we're to follow Paul as he followed Christ (1 Cor 11:1), what was his take on politics? I do know he once appealed to Rome, but was he ever involved in the overthrow of any ruler?
In Jesus' name
: jonmower Mon Jun 15, 2009 - 20:27:41
: Jaime Mon Jun 15, 2009 - 20:13:55
That doesn't necessarily translate into abstaining from politics, anymore than we should abstain from our means of making a living.
To me an important question is whether or not the explicit and in-your-face participation of Christians in politics tends (overall) to mask or reveal the gospel message in the eyes non-believers. Personally, I think that often it tends to mask it...that the stink of politics rubs off on a practice of Christianity that is too often conflated with politics. Therefore, I also wonder whether or not it would be better for Christians to disengage from politics. I'm not really thinking in terms of voting (since that is private anyway), but rather the more public aspects of the partisan battle royal.
Very good point.
I don't know if anyone has read the book UnChristian by David Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons, but the authors reveal some scary data regarding how closely unbelievers associate Christianity and politics and how this association helps repel them. Right now a free pdf download of the relevant chapter is available at http://www.unchristian.com/.
: marc Mon Jun 15, 2009 - 21:22:27
I don't know if anyone has read the book UnChristian by David Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons, but the authors reveal some scary data regarding how closely unbelievers associate Christianity and politics and how this association helps repel them. Right now a free pdf download of the relevant chapter is available at http://www.unchristian.com/.
We should care what God thinks of us, not a bunch of unbelievers.
Just curious: did you read the chapter?
: marc Mon Jun 15, 2009 - 22:31:33
Just curious: did you read the chapter?
I've read them all from Genesis to Revelation, some of them many times. None of the others matter much, particularily those that want me to change to please unbelievers.
So you're not interested in what anyone else thinks, even those whose views are based in their understanding of scripture in the same way that yours are? Why are you participating on a discussion board, then?
Some very good points both sides of the issue. I think in the end we have to work out our own salvation, with fear and trembling.
Dear marc, below are topical sentences I pasted. He has good ideas to my thinking on the problems "Right Wing" agenda has created, but when it comes to being involved in politics, I would like to hear more than their statement below: "Christians seem to fall on two sides of the path: too political or too apolitical. It is important to find an appropriate balance." All Christianity needs is more opinions outside of scripture, and that's just my opinion. Do you think we should vote, or force legislative righteousness unto the world?
You made the comment - "So you're not interested in what anyone else thinks, even those whose views are based in their understanding of scripture in the same way that yours are? Why are you participating on a discussion board, then?" This was not directed to me, but just because one thinks as I do about Jesus does not seemingly qualify them to tell others what is right or wrong about politics when they're not using scripture to back it up.
David Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons
You should realize that my goal is not to suggest that Christians should neglect or ignore politics. The political arena is a crucial setting for influencing culture and an important domain for expressing a Christian worldview.
Our lives should reflect Jesus, which includes not just how we vote, but every element of
our political engagement—our conversations about politics as well as our attitudes about ideological opponents.
my goal is to give Christians greater clarity about engaging the political sphere as well as insights into how our efforts create a (largely negative) reputation for Christianity and how this affects friends and neighbors. I am trying to spur our thinking and engagement in appropriate ways and do not want to discourage Christ followers from participating in politics.
they wonder whether Jesus would use political power as we do; and they are concerned
that we overpower the voices of other groups.
Do I believe a Christian has every right to go and vote as he or she believes? Absolutely.
++ Christians seem to fall on two sides of the path: too political or too apolitical. It is important to find an appropriate balance—neither ignorant and silent nor relying too heavily on political solutions to societal problems.
Where is God calling you to serve him—media, arts and entertainment, politics, ducation, church, business, science?
Jesus's principle when he was cornered about paying taxes? He said, "Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and give to God what belongs to God
: marc Mon Jun 15, 2009 - 21:22:27
I don't know if anyone has read the book UnChristian by David Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons, but the authors reveal some scary data regarding how closely unbelievers associate Christianity and politics and how this association helps repel them. Right now a free pdf download of the relevant chapter is available at http://www.unchristian.com/.
They tried to make some good points but seem to only want to cook one side of the hamburger.
: marcWhy are you participating on a discussion board, then?
One might ask you that very question, marc, seeing as I've repeatedly asked you a direct question in this thread and you won't answer it.
Last opportunity.
You said you are feeling more and more that Christians should have
nothing to do with politics.
Should Christians then NOT vote, in your opinion?
What will you teach your children?
May I chime in, here? I trust marc will answer for himself regarding his opinion on this. Please keep in mind that his opinion is his private property and we should respect his property rights.
You might find this (http://www.mercatus.org/uploadedFiles/Mercatus/Publications/Radical%20Libertarian%20Political%20Economy%20of%20David%20Lipscomb%20by%20Stringham.pdf) useful as an introduction to the fact that marc's opinion, if you have faithfully described it, is not whacky at all. If that's his view, then he stands with the man my kids' university is named after, that's all. Lipscomb wasn't nuts, either.
Marc may have a different reason than I why it is an opinion worthy of serious consideration. After all, marc and I rarely see eye to eye on political matters that are still being debated. Anyway, the idea of a Christian abstaining from politics, in my opinion, is appealing because the very nature of government is the coercive use of force. Is the coercive use of force ever the Christian way?
I admit to asking this as a man who does keep his doors locked at night, owns guns, etc. It is an idea worthy of consideration, though.
Most of you are assuming all politics are inherently bad. That politics only sully a Christian. I disagree. A lot of good can come from Christians being deeply involved in politics. And just sitting on the bench and watching it all unfold, then saying, "I told you so", isn't working for a change at all.
love,
sopranette
: poptart Mon Jun 15, 2009 - 19:03:10
: Arkstfan Mon Jun 15, 2009 - 09:57:26
: poptart Mon Jun 15, 2009 - 09:34:14
It's among the dumbest things I've heard.
Would you care to cite Scripture which you imagine backs the idea that Christians ought not vote, let alone even engage in any "political" activity at all?
"My kingdom is not of this world" John 18:36
How about one scripture where Jesus or any disciple went to the Roman Senate or Caesar to change government policy? The closest we get is Paul exercising his right as a Roman citizen to appeal a possible death sentence to Caesar and then not change the law but arguing it doesn't fit what he has done.
Christ's Kingdom is not of this world.
Yes, I agree. lol
And so??
Your Scripture ... FAILS ... to support the view that Christians ought not vote or engage in any political activity at all.
You've simply latched onto a weird idea, chosen to run with it, and yanked a Scripture out of the Bible try (feebly) to support it.
Christians thinking that they should surrender their right to vote is moronic at best.
Why would I need to show you Scripture where Jesus or any disciple went to the Roman Senate or Caesar to change government policy?
Did I ever assert any such a thing???
Nope, never.
Don't toss things out and try to connect them to me.
It's a highly disingenous move on your part, and it won't divert attention away from the fact that you are standing in support of a VERY strange idea.
I said Christians should not forfeit their God-given and law-given right to vote.
That's what I said.
And that saying they should do that is among the dumbest things ever uttered.
Do you imagine the country and people will be better off if Christians forfeit their votes and the land is TOTALLY taken over by idol worshippers?
Good grief.
God was truly glorified in your post wasn't he? The love of Jesus just poured out of it.
Jesus did not come to establish a kingdom here you can call that weird or strange or whatever nasty denigration comes to mind. I answered your post with precisely what you asked. You choose to be hateful. So be it.
: Lou Mon Jun 15, 2009 - 22:22:38
: marc Mon Jun 15, 2009 - 21:22:27
I don't know if anyone has read the book UnChristian by David Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons, but the authors reveal some scary data regarding how closely unbelievers associate Christianity and politics and how this association helps repel them. Right now a free pdf download of the relevant chapter is available at http://www.unchristian.com/.
We should care what God thinks of us, not a bunch of unbelievers.
Might want to read the words of Jesus once more if you think what unbelievers think of us isn't relevant.
No offense, Nick, but I couldn't care less if your 3 kids go to a school named after a guy who ... maybe has the same opinion as marc.
And I'm certainly not going to pore through a friggin' 42 page "introduction" into his view on government.
I asked you to show Scripture which instructs Christians that they should forfeit their right to vote and willingly surrender their land to idol worshippers.
WORST idea ever.
Arkstfan, remember that you came in and took a cheap shot at me in LOCKED thread that only mods could then post in.
So you want to come in and be some sort of moral authority??
Goodness.
In this thread I asked you to defend your take and I was not the slightest bit moved by your defense of the position.
So I responded with honesty, not hate.
The lone Scripture you posted was of NO use to defend you view.
I simpy find it MIND NUMBING that anyone would even imagine that Christians need to forfeit their land away to the idolatrous unbelivers.
Is this real??
: Lou Mon Jun 15, 2009 - 22:22:38
: marc Mon Jun 15, 2009 - 21:22:27
I don't know if anyone has read the book UnChristian by David Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons, but the authors reveal some scary data regarding how closely unbelievers associate Christianity and politics and how this association helps repel them. Right now a free pdf download of the relevant chapter is available at http://www.unchristian.com/.
We should care what God thinks of us, not a bunch of unbelievers.
That has a ring of wisdom, but it always falls short because it can (not saying it does in your case) be a mask for rather unChristian pride and arrogance (it comes across basically as "screw the world, I follow Christ"). Thing is, the scriptures often speak of the importance of the people of God having a good reputation among even the pagan world, and our becoming all things to all men that we might by all means win some. In Luke 2, Jesus was said to have grown in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God
and man. Paul speaks of keeping his conscience clear toward both God
and man. All that to say this: it ain't that simple.
Prov 3:1-4
1 My son, do not forget my teaching, but keep my commands in your heart,
2 for they will prolong your life many years and bring you prosperity.
3 Let love and faithfulness never leave you; bind them around your neck, write them on the tablet of your heart.
4
Then you will win favor and a good name in the sight of God and man.(NIV)
: sopranette Tue Jun 16, 2009 - 05:24:31
Most of you are assuming all politics are inherently bad.
No, I don't think that's quite the assumption. Marc, for example, clearly said that govt. does do some good, and that is part of the reason some mistakenly look too much to it for all their solutions.
That politics only sully a Christian. I disagree.
When you jump into to a pig sty, what changes most? Your smell, or the smell of the sty?
A lot of good can come from Christians being deeply involved in politics.
Doesn't mean the bad doesn't exist, and that the debate is irrelevant in the least.
And just sitting on the bench and watching it all unfold, then saying, "I told you so", isn't working for a change at all.
Bench-warming hasn't been promoted at all. It's being debated whether or not we've put on the wrong jersey and shown up at the wrong arena.
: poptart Tue Jun 16, 2009 - 07:21:40
No offense, Nick, but I couldn't care less if your 3 kids go to a school named after a guy who ... maybe has the same opinion as marc.
And I'm certainly not going to pore through a friggin' 42 page "introduction" into his view on government.
I asked you to show Scripture which instructs Christians that they should forfeit their right to vote and willingly surrender their land to idol worshippers.
WORST idea ever.
You're right, Poptart. NT scriptures are chock full of examples of how the first Christians even voted in the primaries for the upcoming elections for Roman Emperor and the like and that is how they turned idolators away from worshipping stone carvings and the like.
It is certainly understandable that a Christian can look at the world and question the assumptions, as Lipscomb did, that governments need to make laws, that governments are created for the public good and that democracy is for the common good.
It is also understandable that someone, even a Christian, may observe their world and come to beleive such things as government is inherently coercive, governments seek to increase disorder to expand their power, people should abstain from voting, instead seeking change through persuasive and non-coercive methods, peaceful civilization is not dependent on the state, and that governments are created for the benefit of the rulers, not the people. If that is how someone views government, it is perfectly understandable that they would not take part, figuring it makes about as much sense as trying to bring Christian business ethics to the operation of a Nevada brothel.
Judges 17:6 says "In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit." Later on, we have example after example of how doing what was right in a king's eye was often not an improvement.
: NickYou're right, Poptart. NT scriptures are chock full of examples of how the first Christians even voted in the primaries for the upcoming elections for Roman Emperor and the like and that is how they turned idolators away from worshipping stone carvings and the like.
Nick, I asked to see Scripture to SUPPORT the ... Christians ought not vote ... take.
I didn't ask for what is NOT FOUND in Scripture.
Surely you are aware of the overwhelming number of things that New Testament never mentions.
If Christians abstaining from political involvement completely is something that we ought to do, surely we would find Scripture which informs us of this.
We don't.
And basic common sense tells us (or at least
me) that we are more apt to be able to fulfill Matthew 28:16-20 and Acts 1:8 if we don't surrender our land over to idol worshippers.
Poptart. You are not persuaded by scripture that has been relied upon by millions.
Yet you dismiss them. I'm not on that boat but I don't deem myself a greater believer to dismiss their truthfully held belief.
I haven't foggiest what you are talking about on the other matter. I've given general prescriptions to multiple people in a thread to calm down when I've locked one and never singled in any specific person out. You either had a guilty conscience or I responded not realizing the thread was locked.
We have zero scriptural support for any first centurty Christian being involved in shaping policy. We have Christ stopping and redirecting those who desired to take over government.
: ArkstfanPoptart. You are not persuaded by scripture that has been relied upon by millions.
Yet you dismiss them.
What in the world are you talking about??
You didn't SHOW any Scripture supporting the silly view that Christians ought not vote.
: ArkstfanWe have zero scriptural support for any first centurty Christian being involved in shaping policy. We have Christ stopping and redirecting those who desired to take over government.
Shaping policy and taking over the government??? LOL
Hey guy, I said NO such thing.
I said it's total nonsense to declare that Christians ought not vote.
You can't provide anything Biblically to support that VERY strange view, so you have resorted to trying to attribute takes to me which I never gave.
Where is the Scripture telling Christians that they ought not vote?
Which would be, btw, effectively handing the land the live in over to idol worshippers.
: poptart Tue Jun 16, 2009 - 08:43:04
Nick, I asked to see Scripture to SUPPORT the ... Christians ought not vote ... take.
When God wanted to punish the Israelites for idolatry at Sinai...he gave them a priesthood.
When God wanted to punish the Israelites for imitating the nations they were supposed to be an example for...he gave them a king.
I been watching many documentaries lately, One is called the Conscious objector, who would not fire a shot, but saved five lives. I watched another " At death House Door" A pastor, who had attended twenty executions in Texas. he is now against the death penalty. I am not in agreement with either of these men, but, I respect their convictions, and so if a Christian does not think it right to be involved, that is their conviction. It is not mine, but so??? Like I posted before a scripture that sums it all up. Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.