Sad

[Bon Voyage]

:frowning:

[marc]

Unfortunately it reflects the state of politics in general.

Seems like we should do better, doesn't it?

[janine]

I really need to come here more often.

Somehow it doesn't bother me as much as it does some others.  Maybe if I was more "into" it I could see the horrors.

[spurly]

I'm all for political discussions which seek to build each other up, and not tear each other down.  We as Christians should be the ones adding that tone to the political discussion - because the world won't.

Kevin

[Booty]

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (marc @ Feb. 14 2004,11:57)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Unfortunately it reflects the state of politics in general.

Seems like we should do better, doesn't it?[/quote]
That invariably this does not happen should tell you something about the inappropiateness of Christian participation in politics to begin with.

[marc]

I dunno.   :shrugsmiley: It seems the same thing eventually happens when Christians of differing opinions discuss religion.

Seriously, I think that the problem with this is that our current system of government in the US is predicated on the participation of its citizens.  "Giving unto Caeser" in our system, that is giving the government what it requires, would seem to include participating in the system.

I believe, though, that this can take place without an extreme allegiance to a particular political party or philosophy.  And I think that, for the sake of consitency, it must take place within the context of the basic principles of Christianity.

I have been trying for a while to get some answers as to why some posters don't seem to think the latter is important, but I have yet to receive any responses.

[Booty]

Ideally you are correct and were your nation maintaining it's original ideals you would be correct. But like all other mechanations of man, it is no longer following the noble ideals upon which it was based.

The system of individual participation fell by the wayside centuries ago, you technically may even be constitutionally denied the priviledge of voting for your President and Vice President.

Politics is no fertile ground for the Lord's workers.

[marc]

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (Booty @ Feb. 15 2004,09:56)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Ideally you are correct and were your nation maintaining it's original ideals you would be correct. But like all other mechanations of man, it is no longer following the noble ideals upon which it was based.

The system of individual participation fell by the wayside centuries ago, you technically may even be constitutionally denied the priviledge of voting for your President and Vice President.

Politics is no fertile ground for the Lord's workers.[/quote]
Not quite sure what you mean by the presidential voting, since that has always been a representative rather than a direct election (direct election of Senators, even, was an adjustment).  How direct our democracy is is usually proportionate with how local the election is.  I believe the heart of our government is in the local precints, not in Washington.

But you are largely correct, I believe, as to the basic idea that our government is not "of the people" in the way that it should be.  I think the answer to that, though, is more participation, not less.

[Booty]

Marc

Perusing the USA Constitution sometime back I realized that the state legislatures hold the plenary power to select the Electors from their state in a manner of their devising. Such manner appeared to include eliminating a popular vote if they so chose.

I then continued researching and discovered an interesting decision of the USSC titled McPherson Vs Blackley which conformed my suspicion. Further this was cited in Bush vs Palm Beach County Canvassing Board and once again my opinion was borne true.

Would it happen? I do not know. Could it happen, most certainly YES.

[janine]

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]... "Giving unto Caeser" in our system, that is giving the government what it requires, would seem to include participating in the system.

I believe, though, that this can take place without an extreme allegiance to a particular political party or philosophy.  And I think that, for the sake of consitency, it must take place within the context of the basic principles of Christianity...[/quote]
Is there anything in our lives, anything at all, safe to allow to take place outside of that context?

[marc]

Some think so.

[Jim Abb]

Marc wrote:

" I believe, though, that this can take place without an extreme allegiance to a particular political party or philosophy.  And I think that, for the sake of consitency, it must take place within the context of the basic principles of Christianity."

marc...could you expand on what you are asking here? I'm not sure I follow...

Jim

[marc]

I'm basically talking about having allegiance to Christ rather than to party or philosophy.  This doesn't preclude identification with a party, but rather suggests that we should identify with Christ first, and then identify with a party or philosophy only as much as our interpretation of Christ's will determines.  

And yes, I believe that people have honestly done this and have taken different political roads.

And above all, I cannot see why our differing political opinions should--I cannot see scripturally how they can--treat each other the way that people treat each other on this board.  We are bound together because of our identity in Christ, and the very fact that He saved us should make us realize that none of us is perfect, that each of us has faults, that each of us stumbles, that none of us should build walls dividing us from another person whom Christ has accepted.

I think Paul said something like that in Romans.

In other words, if there is scriptural justification for the common behavior on this board, I can't find it.

[Jim Abb]

Blame it on passion I guess. In my youth I was very passionate about politics and my ideas. As age has come along it takes a bit to get the old juices flowing (but some on here have managed to stoke the old fires, lol).
I think most of us here try a little harder in the "religion" sections to be tempered...maybe because we hold issues there as more important then who gets to be President. Maybe we feel that our Christianity will overcome our political differences easier than our doctrinal differences. So, not willing to risk damage to our relationships in the important Christian matters we are more tolerant.
Or, maybe we wrap church and state so tightly together that they take on twice the passion.

Jim

[marc]

Passion I understand.  I possibly replied a bit too passionately to a thread a few moments ago, as a matter of fact.  But I think at least some of what goes on here is calculated to cause conflict.  

And I wonder whether people identify more with their party than with Christ.