And of course, Politics.

[oscarkipling]

okay I know that this is an extremely divisive and broad question,but still if you feel like getting into it then I'd appreciate it. What should a Christian's sociopolitical stance look like? What in your opinion, should a God fearing nation look like? What sorts of policies (trade, defense social, programs and the like) should a Christian nation have? Most importantly I'd like to see the scripture that informs your politics and explanations of your conclusions.

[ServantofTruth]

I'm not quite sure how this question is meant to help you find and submit to Jesus Christ, but i'll reply anyway.

My politics would combine Romans chapter 13 with how Jesus himself lived while on earth and the apostles/ disciples. It would include the whole of scripture - not just the obvious verses that speak directly to the issue (or seem to).

Like my faith generally, it would include love for all people and love for all christians - including listening to how they see God's Word through the Holy Spirit in them.

It would include admitting i am not perfect and i am sometimes wrong. Puting others before myself, even if it hurts me to do so.

I guess i'd quickly find myself sharing the sermon on the mount, Matthew chapters 5-7 for how to live.

If i began listing scriptures, i'd start with the ones above - but the list would honestly not end until every book, chapter and verse was included.

I think you may be surprised, how this topic developes. Faith and politics can come together - but only if politics is a very poor second place. Love SofTy. :eek:

[Scruffy Kid]

There are many many aspects, of course, to the political and social ethics the bible teaches.

One -- just one -- of those aspects is helping the poor and needy, including society making mandatory and institutional provision for those in need.

I can't really get into your whole topic for the next few days, at least, because of other work and family obligations.

However, I refer you to the thread Christianity and the social gospel, and by way of introduction note three posts, out of quite a few, from that thread in which I develop the biblical case in detail, giving over 100 scriptures. The three posts simply introduce you to the thread, the biblical case, and my posts on it.

Happy reading!
God's commands concerning our response to those in need: NTThe The Tanach (Old Testament) also places a high value upon helping the poor -- just as (we have seen) the NT does. ...

Isaiah begins by proclaiming God's judgment upon Judah because they fail to care for those in need; and tells them -- there and through the book up through chapter 58 -- that what they need to do to return to God is (as one of the most important steps, not the whole) to care for those in need, and treat them as if they were kin, and supply their needs. ...

7. The Torah (The Books of Moses, the Penteteuch)

Right response to the poor is discussed mainly in Leviticus and Deuteronomy -- especially Lev. 25 and Deut 15. Both are quite emphatic, proscribe detailed duties of helping the poor, as well as laying down general principles.

The point is not that the detailed regulations are to be an exact model for legislation today, but rather that these teachings clearly indicate the importance God puts upon institutional provisions for the poor, as well as individual acts of charity. Also, they indicate that these things are not put out as a matter of options to consider, or nice extras, but as commands which are part of God's essential plans.

Care -- material provision -- for those in need is central to living a righteous life, according to the bible, and is a central part of obeying God and walking with him. Thus the statutes and injunctions of the books of Moses were the foundation for the teaching about the poor that is made in the NT and in the prophets and wisdom literature (Psalms, etc.) as discussed above.

General Principles.
The idea developed throughout the law of Moses is that the whole community, and each of those within it, is to take care of the poor. He command, in general, that "if there is a poor man of one of your brothers inside your gates in your land which the Lord your God gives you, you shall not harden your heart, nor shut your hand from your poor brother" (Deut. 15:7).

The language is worth noting: "you shall not harden your heart". "Hardening your heart" is, in OT and NT, is language used of those who turn away from God. God delivered the Israelites from bondage in Egypt with a mighty hand, despite Pharoah's hard heart. Thus this command connects our "loving your neighbor" (Lev. 19:18) who may be poor with our openness to God and His purposes and his word to us. Again it emphasizes that the land is God's -- that our prosperity and material blessings are God's gift and not simply the result of our own exertions -- and that therefore its fruits are to be used in care for all people, and not just ourselves.

The underlying thought here thus deeply prepares for the proclamation of the prophets, of Christ, and of the NT writers. The portion of the argument just quoted, which contains the heading "7. Torah" indicates that this was one point out of 7 in my discussion of the theme in the OT (Tanach). There's about 10 pages or more of close Scriptural argument which were martialled in my arguments on this point. The thread contains important reflections by Cheech and others, as well as some really odd contributions by some ex-members of the board.

The discussion below about the central message of the gospel is -- though it may not at first seem so -- very much a part of that discussion. It is trying to indicate how the core theological themes of Creation, salvation, and Christ's death and resurrection are tied in to the social ethics of care for those in need. These are not disparate parts of the Biblical teaching, but integrally connected.
The aim and goal of our lives, the purpose for which God created us, is that we should be joined with Him in a life shared with him, and this is the life of love.

Thus Peter writes that God's "power has given us all things unto life and godliness through knowledge of him who has called us to glory and virtue; and through this are given to us his exceedingly great and precious promises, that" we "might become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through excessive desires." It's because of that that Peter urges us to "diligently add virtue to faith", add knowledge to virtue, moderation, patience, and godliness to knowledge, culminating in brotherly kindness (philadelphia) and love (agape). These things make us abound, and be fruitful in the knowledge of Jesus Christ; but those who lack them are "blind." They make our calling and election sure. (II Pet. 1:3-10)

Similarly John emphasizes that our heritage of living as God's children comes from what Christ has done for us, and has as its end being like Jesus. "See what love the Father has shown us that we should be called the children of God. ... we know that when he (Christ) appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is! Everyone who thus hopes in him purifies himself because he (Christ) is pure." (I John 3:1-3) This leads into a passage in which practical instruction in self-purification and living as Christ lives leads to an exhortation to love one another ("he who does not love his brother abides in death", 3:14) and to work that love out in deeds of practical compassion ("if someone has this world's goods but shuts up his compassion" toward those who lack them, "how does God's love abide in him." 3:17) Because our aim -- God's aim for us -- is that we be part of Christ's body, and be made like Him, we are urged, as "little children" to "love not in speech and word, but in deed and truth." (3:18) All this is part of John's invitation to his readers to "have fellowship with us, and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His son Jesus Christ." 1:3 This is grounded in God's eternal nature ("God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God and God abides in him," 4:16) and in what Christ has done for us ("This is love, not that we loved God but that He loved us, and gave his son to be the propitiation for our sins." 4:10; and "We love because he first loved us", 4:19) Nevertheless, this has to find fruit in our compassion toward those whom we actually meet: "he who doesn't love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen, and we have this command from him that he who loves God must love his brother also." (4:20-21)

Paul (I Cor. 13:2) tells us "though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not love, I am nothing."

These counsels, commands, and spiritual understandings -- repeated in various ways by James, Paul, Luke, Mark, and other Biblical writers, in NT and OT, are based on the praxis of the early church, as recounted in Acts, and on Jesus' own life. Jesus is the very image of the Father's own person (II Cor 4:4, Col. 2:15, Heb. 1:3, John 14:9, etc.), and we are made to be conformed to his image (Rom. 8:29, I John 3:2, etc.)

Jesus is repeatedly shown as healing those in need, and helping those who are poor, and comforting the sorrowful. When Jesus heals, in the gospels, we are told over and over again that he "had compassion" -- literally he was "moved in his guts" (Matt. 9:36, 14:14, 15:32, 20:34, Mark 1:41, 6:34, 8:2, Luke 7:12, etc.) This expression (σπλαγχνίζομαι, splagchnizomai, to be moved in the guts) is used repeatedly both of Jesus healing those in physical need, and of his having compassion on people's spiritual needs. It cannot be seriously maintained that Jesus healed people only to demonstrate his power, or promote the gospel, because the motive ascribed in the gospel texts is that of "gut-wrenching" compassion -- which accords with many other parts of Jesus' teaching and action. Jesus weeps for Lazarus, and for Jerusalem, and describes God's love for us as like a Father's love for his children.

And of course Jesus centrally, and repeatedly, tells us to love: to love everyone -- family, friends, strangers, enemies, foreigners, sinners, those in need and so on. (We love because He first loved us!) He tells us to love in costly ways, sacrificially, taking risks, giving up what is our own to do so.

And he does so because only thus can we be at one with him, partakers in his work, joined with him in spirit, right in heart, close to God. God has called us to be holy, for He is holy; to be a kingdom of priests to God, to have and to live with the mind of Christ. And so He has called us to love, as He also loves. Also it's only fitting, as we ourselves are hopeless debtors, made alive only by His grace (and, of course, created by Him as well, and made to be in his image and likeness.)

So it's a central part of his incredibly great and kind love and mercy to each of us that he wants us to participate in the life of self-giving love that is the very heart of His own life and goodness and fullness of being.

That, IMO, is what this thread is all about.
Blessings on you!
Scruff

[oscarkipling]

I'm not quite sure how this question is meant to help you find and submit to Jesus Christ, but i'll reply anyway.

My politics would combine Romans chapter 13 with how Jesus himself lived while on earth and the apostles/ disciples. It would include the whole of scripture - not just the obvious verses that speak directly to the issue (or seem to).

Like my faith generally, it would include love for all people and love for all christians - including listening to how they see God's Word through the Holy Spirit in them.

It would include admitting i am not perfect and i am sometimes wrong. Puting others before myself, even if it hurts me to do so.

I guess i'd quickly find myself sharing the sermon on the mount, Matthew chapters 5-7 for how to live.

If i began listing scriptures, i'd start with the ones above - but the list would honestly not end until every book, chapter and verse was included.

I think you may be surprised, how this topic developes. Faith and politics can come together - but only if politics is a very poor second place. Love SofTy. :eek:

I like surprises, I say go ahead and start developing the picture until you get tired.

also...I'm not sure how this could help me find Jesus either, but you know...at least we're talking about the bible.

[oscarkipling]

There are many many aspects, of course, to the political and social ethics the bible teaches.

One -- just one -- of those aspects is helping the poor and needy, including society making mandatory and institutional provision for those in need.

I can't really get into your whole topic for the next few days, at least, because of other work and family obligations.

However, I refer you to the thread Christianity and the social gospel, and by way of introduction note three posts, out of quite a few, from that thread in which I develop the biblical case in detail, giving over 100 scriptures. The three posts simply introduce you to the thread, the biblical case, and my posts on it.

Happy reading!
The portion of the argument just quoted, which contains the heading "7. Torah" indicates that this was one point out of 7 in my discussion of the theme in the OT (Tanach). There's about 10 pages or more of close Scriptural argument which were martialled in my arguments on this point. The thread contains important reflections by Cheech and others, as well as some really odd contributions by some ex-members of the board.

The discussion below about the central message of the gospel is -- though it may not at first seem so -- very much a part of that discussion. It is trying to indicate how the core theological themes of Creation, salvation, and Christ's death and resurrection are tied in to the social ethics of care for those in need. These are not disparate parts of the Biblical teaching, but integrally connected.

Blessings on you!
Scruff

awesome, this is exactly what i wanted! thanks

[markinro]

okay I know that this is an extremely divisive and broad question,but still if you feel like getting into it then I'd appreciate it. What should a Christian's sociopolitical stance look like? What in your opinion, should a God fearing nation look like? What sorts of policies (trade, defense social, programs and the like) should a Christian nation have? Most importantly I'd like to see the scripture that informs your politics and explanations of your conclusions.


Matt 22

16 And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men.
17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?
18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?
19 Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.
20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?
21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
22 When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.

[oscarkipling]

Matt 22

16 And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men.
17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?
18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?
19 Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.
20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?
21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
22 When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.

While I appreciate your reply, I'd appreciate it more if you could explain how this informs your political views...what do these verses tell you about God's will when it comes to politics? what sociopolitical opinions have you formed based on this scripture?

[markinro]

Jesus had this gift (among MANY) of saying very little but speaking VOLUMES. In essence, speaking in the general sense

Love each other as you love yourselves

In Matt 22, Jesus is saying "Man will make no law that goes against God's will"

As far as my political views, I would agree with the above statement

[ServantofTruth]

I actually feel developing what i have said so far would waste my time and yours. I have little interest in political parties, or the politics of satan's world. It bores me to be honest.

My role is to bring non believers to Jesus Christ and help new christians with their walk.

If you read the gospels and act, or try to, like Jesus and the disciples you won't go far wrong. Which party you put a cross against in an election, doesn't interest me.

In satan's world we will never have perfect governments because they are made up of imperfect people. Christians will vote for many parties and candidates for many reasons - as long as their concience is clear and they are trying their best to follow Jesus Christ, it's all we can ask in this body/ life.

What you need to do is stop thinking as satan's world has made you think, about countries, and governments, and possessions and start seeing all people as God's children all the same, whereever they are born, whatever colour, whatever sex, whatever background.

One thing is important in your life/ today right now. Are you going to come to the foot of the cross of Jesus Christ and confess your sins?

Because when Jesus Christ returns, it won't matter who is in government. How important we are or not. How rich or poor. How educated or not. I'll share just a few verses with you. Please be kind enough to read them - Revelation chapter 20: verses 11-15.

The only Christian government will be the rule of Jesus Christ in eternity. SofTy.

[oscarkipling]

I actually feel developing what i have said so far would waste my time and yours. I have little interest in political parties, or the politics of satan's world. It bores me to be honest.

My role is to bring non believers to Jesus Christ and help new christians with their walk.

If you read the gospels and act, or try to, like Jesus and the disciples you won't go far wrong. Which party you put a cross against in an election, doesn't interest me.

In satan's world we will never have perfect governments because they are made up of imperfect people. Christians will vote for many parties and candidates for many reasons - as long as their concience is clear and they are trying their best to follow Jesus Christ, it's all we can ask in this body/ life.

What you need to do is stop thinking as satan's world has made you think, about countries, and governments, and possessions and start seeing all people as God's children all the same, whereever they are born, whatever colour, whatever sex, whatever background.

One thing is important in your life/ today right now. Are you going to come to the foot of the cross of Jesus Christ and confess your sins?

Because when Jesus Christ returns, it won't matter who is in government. How important we are or not. How rich or poor. How educated or not. I'll share just a few verses with you. Please be kind enough to read them - Revelation chapter 20: verses 11-15.

The only Christian government will be the rule of Jesus Christ in eternity. SofTy.


you know, I was going to say something mean, but I guess the holy spirits came over me, so thanks for you reply.

[mcgyver]

Hey Oscarkipling!

I really haven't "talked" to you very much...just one time if I remember...but I read your posts regularly.

You ask some good questions, and I enjoy reading both the questions and the answers to them.

Seems to me that you're kinda "sticking your toe in to test the waters" as it were, and I've got to ask...

What is it that prevents you from becoming a Christian?

I don't mean that sarcastically or in a challenging manner...I'm just curious to know :)

[Scruffy Kid]

Dear Oscar,
The kind of questions you have asked are ones that are very difficult to answer concisely.

For example, as regards an obligation to help the poor and those who are in need, the Bible is very clear. That's the easy part.

Difficulties in deriving social and economic policies from values
and from overall religious perspectives

Example 1: Poverty and Economics

However, even when it comes to policies relevant to issues of poverty, for instance, that general stance in the Bible, while it does rule out some kinds of responses (such as the general position that CenturionOfLight took, which I was, in part, arguing against) doesn't necessarily tell you what kind of policies would be good under particular circumstances.

Why not?

Because understanding what policies implement, or cash out, the basic values and precepts of Biblical teaching on social ethics requires a kind of concrete analysis of how social and economic institutions operate. Let's take economic institutions, as an example. The normative (values-based) position that is appropriate for Christians has to be combined with a positive (mechanism-based) analysis of how the economy works, before we can know which policies will support those values -- much as a normative (values-based) account of human health doesn't tell you much about what a doctor should do until we know a lot of positive science (biology, mechanism-based account of how the human body operates when it is working well and when it is working poorly) about health. The values (normative concepts) we bring to any policy issue can only be implemented through knowledge about how systems work (positive, or empirically based concepts). In the case of medicine this is not a big deal -- there's relatively little debate about what the goals are (good health), and relatively little dissensus (disagreement) about how the body works. But in the case of economics, there are significant disagreements about the relative importance of different goals, and even more disagreements, perhaps, about how economic systems work.

So people deeply committed to helping the poor, or reducing poverty, might have quite disparate views on what kinds of economic measures work well to do so. Some will think that market mechanisms are most effective. Others think that providing entitlements or a safety net is essential. Some think that the whole market system, at least as it operates in a corporation-based late capitalism is very flawed, and produces vast inequalities of wealth. These differing views, while they have some relation to value differences, are partly differences in positive theory, in predictions about what the causes and consequences of various outcomes in the economy are.

The yet more difficult case of politics and social values

The problem is even more complex when it comes to general politics or social values.

Important general arguments from the history of political theory:
checks and balances, and pluralism as an illustration

Also, then, there are important lines of arguments which need not, necessarily, be associated with a certain value or religious perspective but which were, historically, developed out of such a perspective.

A very important illustration of this would be the design of the US constitution, which is largely due to James Madison, and more broadly appreciation of social and political arrangements which involve decentralization and checks and balances.

An important feature of the design of the Constitution, as I suppose that many people are aware, is what is called "separation of powers". (Madison, of course, was not simply operating on his own: he was drawing on a fairly developed tradition of constitutional government in the colonies, which in turn drew on previous political theorists.) The idea here is that Presidential, or Executive, powers are in the hands of some officeholders, Legislative power in the hands of others, and Judicial power in yet other hands. There's yet more, of course: for instance a separation of powers between the states and the federal government, and also sets of limits on the government, and a list of rights that the government is not supposed to infringe upon.

This whole design reflects, rather self-consciously I think, a broad Christian theological tradition, which sees human beings as innately sinful, and therefore which regards leaders, in particular, as apt to run amok. The concept is not necessarily that "the people" are better than leaders, but that the leaders, who by definition, have a lot of power, are not to be trusted. (As Lord Acton, a 19th century British Catholic Liberal author, put it: "power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely.") Thus the doctrine of original sin, and the general understanding of the fallenness of human nature, deeply inform, formed, and undergird well-worked out political and philosophical approaches to government which, distrusting people as apt to misuse their power, insist upon lots of checks and balances.

The idea of jury trials, and much of the analysis of a market-based economy along the lines of Adam Smith (Wealth of Nations, published in 1776), and of the importance of a free press, reflect similar concern for checks and balances and distributing power.

Similar lines of thinking are fleshed out in a different way in modern catholic social thought -- and in particular in its development of the concept of "subsidiarity" -- and the somewhat similar development of modern Reformed (calvinist) social and political thought, often going under the term "sphere sovereignty" or referred to as "pluralism" particularly in the thinking of Abraham Kuyper (pronounced KIE-purr) and later Herman Dooyeweerd, who built upon Kuyper's earlier work. This would be represented at the moment, among other things, by thinkers like James Skillen, and the Institute for Public Justice.

Important general arguments from the history of political theory:
Christian thinking about war and peace
Another illustration would be Christian attitudes to war. There are perhaps two main lines of Christian political thinking about war.

One strain of thought that takes definite form in the anabaptist tradition in the 16th century (whose contemporary descendents would include Quakers and Mennonites) is a pacifist approach to war. William Penn, a devout Quaker, founded Pennsylvania for the sake of establishing religious tolerance, but particularly a haven for anabapists, who were persecuted in Europe. Pennsylvania still has a high concentration of Quakers, Amish (i.e. old order Mennonites) and and historic peace churches. In some way, European followers of similar anabaptist traditions influenced Tolstoi, and the strong emphasis on loving one's enemies, and the pacifism of Tolstoi, strongly influenced M.K. Gandhi, in India, to the creation of a philosophy of non-violence (ahimsa). In general, Gandhi's powerful and distinctive political philosophy drew heavily on the New Testament -- and especially on Jesus' words, and most particularly on the Sermon on the Mount. Gandhi, in turn, had an absolutely pivotal effect on the thinking of Martin Luther King, and through him on the whole civil rights movement.

The anabaptist tradition, however, at least arguably, arises from a longer tradition of radical lifestyle obedience and lowly service movements in the church, including the monastic tradition, the Pauperes Christi, and the teaching of St. Francis, and the Franciscan monks. If you want to explore all this, the logical first place to turn would be the writings of John Howard Yoder, an important 20th century anabaptist theologian and scholar. Yoder's most famous book is called The Politics of Jesus, in which he seeks to develop the basic ideas of the Anabaptist tradition, and some further ideas, from an examination of the Gospel and other NT accounts of Jesus. Yoder grew up anabaptist (Yoder is a characteristically Mennonite name; there are thousands of them!) and as an adult later sought to construct his own, rethought intellectual appropriation of the anabaptist tradition. The book The Believers Church (I've forgotten the author) might also be helpful to look at on the history of these movements.

The other tradition of thinking about war would be the so called "Just War" tradition, which derives from Augustine's (Augustine of Hippo) answer from questions about whether it was OK for Christians' to serve in the army (where, however, the Roman army of his day was more like a blend of a police force, and a defense against invading Huns, Visagoths, etc. Augustine's basic answer was that under certain carefully defined circumstances it was permissible, in order to preserve civilization against marauders who would, if unopposed, destroy peaceful realms. However, one had to be fighting the war for a just cause (that is, to defend oneself or some other innocent party), with the intention of creating a more just world, and with no malice toward one's opponents, and with careful attention to the lives of innocent parties, such as non-combatants. This line of thinking was developed by a variety of authors, but found definitive reformulation in the work of Thomas Aquinas. From there, it was further reworked in the 16th century by the professors at the School of Salamanca, and in the early 17th century by the mild dutch calvinist Hugo de Groot (Grotius), theologian and diplomat, in his book The Law of War and Peace, written and published in Latin, which aimed to reformulate the doctrine in non-religious terms. From Grotius the ideas pass into international law (Grotius is considered the father of international law) as well as continuing in religious reflection.

The best contemporary introduction to this tradition is a book by the (Jewish) political theorist Michael Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars. Jean Bethke Elstain, a political scientist and theologian at (I think) the University of Chicago has written a lot about the Just War tradition, and how we should apply it in contemporary situations, including confronting terrorist acts. There is also a truly wonderful (IMO) document The Challenge of Peace from the early eighties from the NCCB (National Council of Catholic Bishops) which attempts to apply the Just War tradition, and its emphasis on peacemaking, in contemporary context, and in the situation of the possibility of Nuclear War. That book, essentially based on a draft by (Catholic) political scientist Bruce Russett, also emphasizes those traditions additional the the Just War tradition that sought -- with some effectiveness -- to limit and restrain warfare in Europe during the middle ages. It should be firmly kept in mind that the "Just War" tradition as a whole is not about justifying wars, but about restricting and reducing their occurrence and their destructiveness -- that is, about setting conditions in which war is impermissible.

Summary

In this post I have tried to make clear that seeking to derive political and social and economic thought from the teaching of historic Christianity, and from the Bible, is a complex matter, not something that is quickly settled by quoting a few Bible verses. Serious Christian thinkers have wrestled with these problems through the ages.

While a lot can be gotten from direct reflection upon Biblical texts, a fuller thinking through of these problems, I think, requires broader consideration of the history of Christian political thinking and political philosophy. [There's a sourcebook of Christian political thought by (Oliver) O'Donovan and (Joan Lockwood) O'Donovan (an Oxford University husband and wife team), and a lot of further discussion -- at a pretty sophisticated level -- in works by each of them. Oliver O'Donovan is particularly famous for The Desire of Nations and Resurrection and Moral Order.] I've tried to sketch a few reasons why that is so, and a few ways in which that has been done.

In friendship,
Scruffy Kid

[oscarkipling]

Hey Oscarkipling!

I really haven't "talked" to you very much...just one time if I remember...but I read your posts regularly.

You ask some good questions, and I enjoy reading both the questions and the answers to them.

Seems to me that you're kinda "sticking your toe in to test the waters" as it were, and I've got to ask...

What is it that prevents you from becoming a Christian?

I don't mean that sarcastically or in a challenging manner...I'm just curious to know :)


Hey McGuyver

Well, the only thing I can really say is that I don't believe that God exists. I don't believe what Christianity says about God or heaven or salvation or spirits or creation. I will admit that there are things in Christianity that I feel are mighty fine guidelines that can make life a whole lot better. So, while it is often insightful, I just don't feel that the Christian model of the world has persistently divine characteristics, It doesn't feel different enough from other ideologies for me to say "At last! The other half of the medallion!!". I don't feel that Christians are so different from other believers that their Christian beliefs insist undeniable truth. There are so many alternate explanations that are equally intriguing and insightful and equally awkward. when I take it all in (or as much as I have taken in) The Christian model doesn’t appear to describe reality with such accuracy that I am compelled to believe it...there are even parts that require such acrobatics to to fit into what I suspect (dare I say know) about the world that it leaves a bitter taste in my brains. When I think of all the fervent believers that were sure that they were following God even hearing his direct inducements; those who by today’s standards would surely burn in hell, it makes me question the veracity of the notion of spiritual understanding/personal relationship with God. The constant justification that people purposely wanted to be evil winds up feeling like a cop out and the utter absence of tangible action by God since the olden days only makes it harder to comprehend. There are also principles such as the "Peace of Christ" that truly fails to distinguish itself from its pedestrian foil. I have not found a single concept that transcends common human intellect (which I feel is extremely formidable) and psychology. The fact that I’ve asked God many times to reveal himself to me and has as of yet been left wanting is something that I can only interpret as apathy or absence....So, what’s keeping me out here and you in there? Incentive.



hahah thats hilarious how I started out with "all I can say is" like I was gonna write that one sentence....i'm such a windbag.

[oscarkipling]

Dear Oscar,
The kind of questions you have asked are ones that are very difficult to answer concisely.

For example, as regards an obligation to help the poor and those who are in need, the Bible is very clear. That's the easy part.

Difficulties in deriving social and economic policies from values
and from overall religious perspectives


Example 1: Poverty and Economics

However, even when it comes to policies relevant to issues of poverty, for instance, that general stance in the Bible, while it does rule out some kinds of responses (such as the general position that CenturionOfLight took, which I was, in part, arguing against) doesn't necessarily tell you what kind of policies would be good under particular circumstances.

Why not?

Because understanding what policies implement, or cash out, the basic values and precepts of Biblical teaching on social ethics requires a kind of concrete analysis of how social and economic institutions operate. Let's take economic institutions, as an example. The normative (values-based) position that is appropriate for Christians has to be combined with a positive (mechanism-based) analysis of how the economy works, before we can know which policies will support those values -- much as a normative (values-based) account of human health doesn't tell you much about what a doctor should do until we know a lot of positive science (biology, mechanism-based account of how the human body operates when it is working well and when it is working poorly) about health. The values (normative concepts) we bring to any policy issue can only be implemented through knowledge about how systems work (positive, or empirically based concepts). In the case of medicine this is not a big deal -- there's relatively little debate about what the goals are (good health), and relatively little dissensus (disagreement) about how the body works. But in the case of economics, there are significant disagreements about the relative importance of different goals, and even more disagreements, perhaps, about how economic systems work.

So people deeply committed to helping the poor, or reducing poverty, might have quite disparate views on what kinds of economic measures work well to do so. Some will think that market mechanisms are most effective. Others think that providing entitlements or a safety net is essential. Some think that the whole market system, at least as it operates in a corporation-based late capitalism is very flawed, and produces vast inequalities of wealth. These differing views, while they have some relation to value differences, are partly differences in positive theory, in predictions about what the causes and consequences of various outcomes in the economy are.

The yet more difficult case of politics and social values

The problem is even more complex when it comes to general politics or social values.

Important general arguments from the history of political theory:
checks and balances, and pluralism as an illustration

Also, then, there are important lines of arguments which need not, necessarily, be associated with a certain value or religious perspective but which were, historically, developed out of such a perspective.

A very important illustration of this would be the design of the US constitution, which is largely due to James Madison, and more broadly appreciation of social and political arrangements which involve decentralization and checks and balances.

An important feature of the design of the Constitution, as I suppose that many people are aware, is what is called "separation of powers". (Madison, of course, was not simply operating on his own: he was drawing on a fairly developed tradition of constitutional government in the colonies, which in turn drew on previous political theorists.) The idea here is that Presidential, or Executive, powers are in the hands of some officeholders, Legislative power in the hands of others, and Judicial power in yet other hands. There's yet more, of course: for instance a separation of powers between the states and the federal government, and also sets of limits on the government, and a list of rights that the government is not supposed to infringe upon.

This whole design reflects, rather self-consciously I think, a broad Christian theological tradition, which sees human beings as innately sinful, and therefore which regards leaders, in particular, as apt to run amok. The concept is not necessarily that "the people" are better than leaders, but that the leaders, who by definition, have a lot of power, are not to be trusted. (As Lord Acton, a 19th century British Catholic Liberal author, put it: "power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely.") Thus the doctrine of original sin, and the general understanding of the fallenness of human nature, deeply inform, formed, and undergird well-worked out political and philosophical approaches to government which, distrusting people as apt to misuse their power, insist upon lots of checks and balances.

The idea of jury trials, and much of the analysis of a market-based economy along the lines of Adam Smith (Wealth of Nations, published in 1776) reflect a similar concern for checks and balances and distributing power.

Similar lines of thinking are fleshed out in a different way in modern catholic social thought -- and in particular in its development of the concept of "subsidiarity" -- and the somewhat similar development of modern Reformed (calvinist) social and political thought, often going under the term "sphere sovereignty" or referred to as "pluralism" particularly in the thinking of Abraham Kuyper (pronounced KIE-purr) and later Herman Dooyeweerd, who built upon Kuyper's earlier work. This would be represented at the moment, among other things, by thinkers like James Skillen.

Important general arguments from the history of political theory:
Christian thinking about war and peace
Another illustration would be Christian attitudes to war. There are perhaps two main lines of Christian political thinking about war.

One strain of thought that takes definite form in the anabaptist tradition in the 16th century (whose contemporary descendents would include Quakers and Mennonites) is a pacifist approach to war. William Penn, a devout Quaker, founded Pennsylvania for the sake of establishing religious tolerance, but particularly a haven for anabapists, who were persecuted in Europe. Pennsylvania still has a high concentration of Quakers, Amish (i.e. old order Mennonites) and and historic peace churches. In some way, European followers of similar anabaptist traditions influenced Tolstoi, and the strong emphasis on loving one's enemies, and the pacifism of Tolstoi, strongly influenced M.K. Gandhi, in India, to the creation of a philosophy of non-violence (ahimsa). In general, Gandhi's powerful and distinctive political philosophy drew heavily on the New Testament -- and especially on Jesus' words, and most particularly on the Sermon on the Mount. Gandhi, in turn, had an absolutely pivotal effect on the thinking of Martin Luther King, and through him on the whole civil rights movement.

The anabaptist tradition, however, at least arguably, arises from a longer tradition of radical lifestyle obedience and lowly service movements in the church, including the monastic tradition, the Pauperes Christi, and the teaching of St. Francis, and the Franciscan monks. If you want to explore all this, the logical first place to turn would be the writings of John Howard Yoder, an important 20th century anabaptist theologian and scholar. Yoder's most famous book is called The Politics of Jesus, in which he seeks to develop the basic ideas of the Anabaptist tradition, and some further ideas, from an examination of the Gospel and other NT accounts of Jesus. Yoder grew up anabaptist (Yoder is a characteristically Mennonite name; there are thousands of them!) and as an adult later sought to construct his own, rethought intellectual appropriation of the anabaptist tradition.

The other tradition of thinking about war would be the so called "Just War" tradition, which derives from Augustine's (Augustine of Hippo) answer from questions about whether it was OK for Christians' to serve in the army (where, however, the Roman army of his day was more like a blend of a police force, and a defense against invading Huns, Visagoths, etc. Augustine's basic answer was that under certain carefully defined circumstances it was permissible, in order to preserve civilization against marauders who would, if unopposed, destroy peaceful realms. However, one had to be fighting the war for a just cause (that is, to defend oneself or some other innocent party), with the intention of creating a more just world, and with no malice toward one's opponents, and with careful attention to the lives of innocent parties, such as non-combatants. This line of thinking was developed by a variety of authors, but found definitive reformulation in the work of Thomas Aquinas. From there, it was further reworked by the professors at the School of Salamanca, and by the mild dutch calvinist Hugo de Groot (Grotius), theologian and diplomat, in his book The Law of War and Peace, which aimed to reformulate the doctrine in non-religious terms. From Grotius the ideas pass into international law (Grotius is considered the father of international law) as well as continuing in religious reflection.

The best contemporary introduction to this is a book by the (Jewish) political theorist Michael Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars. Jean Bethke Elstain, a political scientist and theologian at (I think) the University of Chicago has written a lot about the Just War tradition, and how we should apply it in contemporary situations, including confronting terrorist acts. There is also a truly wonderful (IMO) document The Challenge of Peace from the early eighties from the NCCB (National Council of Catholic Bishops) which attempts to apply the Just War tradition, and its emphasis on peacemaking, in contemporary context, and in the situation of the possibility of Nuclear War. That book, essentially based on a draft by (Catholic) political scientist Bruce Russett, also emphasizes those traditions additional the the Just War tradition that sought -- with some effectiveness -- to limit and restrain warfare in Europe during the middle ages. It should be firmly kept in mind that the "Just War" tradition as a whole is not about justifying wars, but about restricting and reducing their occurrence and their destructiveness -- that is, about setting conditions in which war is IMpermissible.

Summary


In this post I have tried to make clear that seeking to derive political and social and economic thought from the teaching of historic Christianity, and from the Bible, is a complex matter, not something that is quickly settled by quoting a few Bible verses. Serious Christian thinkers have wrestled with these problems through the ages.

While a lot can be gotten from direct reflection upon Biblical texts, a fuller thinking through of these problems, I think, requires broader consideration of the history of Christian political thinking and political philosophy. I've tried to sketch a few reasons why that is so, and a few ways in which that has been done.

In friendship,
Scruffy Kid

Fantastic! That was the finest "I don't know" that I've ever read...:rofl: plenty of info and reading recommendations on the subject. Now if you could go back and answer every question I ever asked ...that would be spectacular!...well okay that's probably a bit much to ask, but I really do appreciate your post. thanks

[Tanya~]

Part of the problem Oscar is that you are basing your idea of the "Christian model of the world" on the opinions of a few Christians, and not on God and what He says about it. Even with the Bible, different Christians will have different concepts of what our political stance should be, just because we're human.

According to the Bible, the world system as it is now is irreparable. It is going to be done away with, and something new is coming to take its place (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20pet%203:10-13;&version=50;). So in truth it doesn't matter that each Christian has a different political stance from every other Christian. Each of us will act according to our own convictions, which convictions are shaped by a variety of factors including how long we've been a believer, how well we know Scripture, how we interpret it, our own background and current circumstances, and a whole host of other things.

But this really does go back to the issue of judgment. The world is going to be judged, and so will each individual person including you. I see that you are exploring a lot of different ideas but ultimately you will need to deal with that fact, one way or the other.

[oscarkipling]

Part of the problem Oscar is that you are basing your idea of the "Christian model of the world" on the opinions of a few Christians, and not on God and what He says about it. Even with the Bible, different Christians will have different concepts of what our political stance should be, just because we're human.

According to the Bible, the world system as it is now is irreparable. It is going to be done away with, and something new is coming to take its place (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20pet%203:10-13;&version=50;). So in truth it doesn't matter that each Christian has a different political stance from every other Christian. Each of us will act according to our own convictions, which convictions are shaped by a variety of factors including how long we've been a believer, how well we know Scripture, how we interpret it, our own background and current circumstances, and a whole host of other things.

But this really does go back to the issue of judgment. The world is going to be judged, and so will each individual person including you. I see that you are exploring a lot of different ideas but ultimately you will need to deal with that fact, one way or the other.


Yes Tanya you may be right, I might have to ultimately deal with judgment, but at this point I don't believe that...and part of the reason is the multiple interpretations...its truly baffling to me.

[mcgyver]

Hey McGuyver

Well, the only thing I can really say is that I don't believe that God exists. I don't believe what Christianity says about God or heaven or salvation or spirits or creation. I will admit that there are things in Christianity that I feel are mighty fine guidelines that can make life a whole lot better. So, while it is often insightful, I just don't feel that the Christian model of the world has persistently divine characteristics, It doesn't feel different enough from other ideologies for me to say "At last! The other half of the medallion!!". I don't feel that Christians are so different from other believers that their Christian beliefs insist undeniable truth. There are so many alternate explanations that are equally intriguing and insightful and equally awkward. when I take it all in (or as much as I have taken in) The Christian model doesn’t appear to describe reality with such accuracy that I am compelled to believe it...there are even parts that require such acrobatics to to fit into what I suspect (dare I say know) about the world that it leaves a bitter taste in my brains. When I think of all the fervent believers that were sure that they were following God even hearing his direct inducements; those who by today’s standards would surely burn in hell, it makes me question the veracity of the notion of spiritual understanding/personal relationship with God. The constant justification that people purposely wanted to be evil winds up feeling like a cop out and the utter absence of tangible action by God since the olden days only makes it harder to comprehend. There are also principles such as the "Peace of Christ" that truly fails to distinguish itself from its pedestrian foil. I have not found a single concept that transcends common human intellect (which I feel is extremely formidable) and psychology. The fact that I’ve asked God many times to reveal himself to me and has as of yet been left wanting is something that I can only interpret as apathy or absence....So, what’s keeping me out here and you in there? Incentive.



hahah thats hilarious how I started out with "all I can say is" like I was gonna write that one sentence....i'm such a windbag.

Just wanted to drop a quick note and tell you "Thanks" for your honest answer! No windbag about it! :)

[mcgyver]

I saw that you stated that you did not believe that God exists.

Just to clarify, are you an atheist in the classic sense of the word (God does not exist...period); or are you more agnostic (maybe God exists or God does exist...but He just doesn't have anything to do with us now) in your thinking?

[Gulah Papyrus]

When I think of all the fervent believers that were sure that they were following God even hearing his direct inducements; those who by today’s standards would surely burn in hell, it makes me question the veracity of the notion of spiritual understanding/personal relationship with God. The constant justification that people purposely wanted to be evil winds up feeling like a cop out and the utter absence of tangible action by God since the olden days only makes it harder to comprehend.

Hello Oscar, good to see you still hanging around.

Can you give a few examples of these 'fervent believers' and their actions?

[oscarkipling]

I saw that you stated that you did not believe that God exists.

Just to clarify, are you an atheist in the classic sense of the word (God does not exist...period); or are you more agnostic (maybe God exists or God does exist...but He just doesn't have anything to do with us now) in your thinking?

Well you know, its not that I know whether or not God exists, I just don't believe that he does. I imagine I've oscillated through all of those ideas at one time or another, but none of them keep me for too long. I'd say the most constant is my inconstancy.

[oscarkipling]

Hello Oscar, good to see you still hanging around.

Can you give a few examples of these 'fervent believers' and their actions?

vuddup Gulah...yep i'm still hangin around

lets see though, the atrocities during the crusades are one of the fist things that I think of. the persecution Jewish people throughout history by Christians. the Inquisitions and witch trials. The Irish protestant v catholic terrors. American slave owners...the Phelpies...idk stuff like that...I know that they weren't "real" Christians, but they thought/think they were/are.

[markinro]

okay I know that this is an extremely divisive and broad question,but still if you feel like getting into it then I'd appreciate it. What should a Christian's sociopolitical stance look like? What in your opinion, should a God fearing nation look like? What sorts of policies (trade, defense social, programs and the like) should a Christian nation have? Most importantly I'd like to see the scripture that informs your politics and explanations of your conclusions.

I'd like to bounce this back.

What should a Christian's sociopolitical stance look like?
What in your opinion, should a God fearing nation look like?
What sorts of policies (trade, defense social, programs and the like) should a Christian nation have?
Most importantly I'd like to see the scripture that informs your politics and explanations of your conclusions.

(i.e. what response are you willing to accept ?)

[oscarkipling]

I'd like to bounce this back.

What should a Christian's sociopolitical stance look like?
What in your opinion, should a God fearing nation look like?
What sorts of policies (trade, defense social, programs and the like) should a Christian nation have?
Most importantly I'd like to see the scripture that informs your politics and explanations of your conclusions.

(i.e. what response are you willing to accept ?)

Well Mark, any answer you give is fine...its better for me personally if you actually engage in my little exercise of the imagination and answer the questions, but as you can see there are many splendored answers here, even ones to questions that I didn't ask. They all remain in this thread without any deleterious effect on the involved parties. So as you can see, you can basically reply in whatever fashion you see fit (in accordance with the rules and statutes of this forum), and I will have no choice but to accept said reply as your response...However if you are asking me what responses I will agree with, then I would have to admit that I'm unfamiliar with all of the possible responses that I might find agreeable, but we can both rest assured that all responses that I agree with will be promptly agreed upon in an agreeable manner...agreed?

[Sold Out]

okay I know that this is an extremely divisive and broad question,but still if you feel like getting into it then I'd appreciate it. What should a Christian's sociopolitical stance look like? What in your opinion, should a God fearing nation look like? What sorts of policies (trade, defense social, programs and the like) should a Christian nation have? Most importantly I'd like to see the scripture that informs your politics and explanations of your conclusions.

"Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD; and the people whom he hath chosen for his own inheritance." Psalm 33:12

First of all you have to separate the responsibilities of the CHURCH and of the GOVERNMENT.

The CHURCH (born-again Christians) have a responsibility to first reach the lost for whom Christ died, then to look after orphans and widows & the poor, and to minister to those in various stages of need (physical or spiritual).

The GOVERNMENT has a responsiblity to establish and uphold laws and govern fairly. There are a plethora of things that can fall under this umbrella, such as national defense, trading, etc.

In my opinion (please take note of that), I believe that our leaders should be God-fearing men - who take into account the moral & civil laws of the bible when establishing laws. We currently see this in our own governmental system, all though some facets have been challenged and removed (abortion;gay marriage).

When America was founded, the idea was 'less government'. The colonists were escaping Britain where the government was oppressive. They wanted to establish a nation that did not want it's citizens to be under a burden of excessive governmental control, and to be self-sufficient.

Well America has flip-flopped that ideal. More people THAN EVER rely on the government for various types of support, which has allowed the government to have more control over it's citizens. This is not what America was intended to be.

[oscarkipling]

"Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD; and the people whom he hath chosen for his own inheritance." Psalm 33:12

First of all you have to separate the responsibilities of the CHURCH and of the GOVERNMENT.

The CHURCH (born-again Christians) have a responsibility to first reach the lost for whom Christ died, then to look after orphans and widows & the poor, and to minister to those in various stages of need (physical or spiritual).

The GOVERNMENT has a responsiblity to establish and uphold laws and govern fairly. There are a plethora of things that can fall under this umbrella, such as national defense, trading, etc.

In my opinion (please take note of that), I believe that our leaders should be God-fearing men - who take into account the moral & civil laws of the bible when establishing laws. We currently see this in our own governmental system, all though some facets have been challenged and removed (abortion;gay marriage).

When America was founded, the idea was 'less government'. The colonists were escaping Britain where the government was oppressive. They wanted to establish a nation that did not want it's citizens to be under a burden of excessive governmental control, and to be self-sufficient.

Well America has flip-flopped that ideal. More people THAN EVER rely on the government for various types of support, which has allowed the government to have more control over it's citizens. This is not what America was intended to be.


Well, thank you for your reply SO.

[dan]

REV 18:6 Reward her even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup which she hath filled fill to her double.

REV 13:9 If any man have an ear, let him hear:
REV 13:10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.

REV 2:26 And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:
REV 2:27 And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.

JAS 5:20 Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.

1TIM 5:8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

1COR 10:28 But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof:

ACTS 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
ACTS 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

[oscarkipling]

REV 18:6 Reward her even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup which she hath filled fill to her double.

REV 13:9 If any man have an ear, let him hear:
REV 13:10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.

REV 2:26 And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:
REV 2:27 And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.

JAS 5:20 Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.

1TIM 5:8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

1COR 10:28 But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof:

ACTS 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
ACTS 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

could you please explain how these verses relate to the topic of this thread?

[dan]

could you please explain how these verses relate to the topic of this thread?

In the first verse we have Jesus telling us how to treat the "Whore Of Babylon". As she is depicted murdering Christians, we should render unto her double.

Next we have common murderers and their punishment, which is brought from the Old Testament and reaffirmed.

These first two should be done as a nation.

The third one is a Prophecy, but does show what God will expect of His Saints.

Numbers four, five and six are personal responsibilities.

In my opinion, all of these are, or should be, a part of any Christian's social conscience and political agenda. Of course, I might be asserting Bible verses that are not popular.:lol:

[oscarkipling]

In the first verse we have Jesus telling us how to treat the "Whore Of Babylon". As she is depicted murdering Christians, we should render unto her double.

Next we have common murderers and their punishment, which is brought from the Old Testament and reaffirmed.

These first two should be done as a nation.

The third one is a Prophecy, but does show what God will expect of His Saints.

Numbers four, five and six are personal responsibilities.

In my opinion, all of these are, or should be, a part of any Christian's social conscience and political agenda. Of course, I might be asserting Bible verses that are not popular.:lol:

thank you very much

[ServantofTruth]

vuddup Gulah...yep i'm still hangin around

lets see though, the atrocities during the crusades are one of the fist things that I think of. the persecution Jewish people throughout history by Christians. the Inquisitions and witch trials. The Irish protestant v catholic terrors. American slave owners...the Phelpies...idk stuff like that...I know that they weren't "real" Christians, but they thought/think they were/are.

As a Christian i associate myself with Jesus Christ and his Word the bible. I can't answer for the actions of Christians in my town, country, continent or Worldwide at this time - and even less in history.

From what you know of Jesus Christ and the bible - do these things you mention sound Christian?

You must focus on accepting, or rejecting, the sacrifice on the cross of Jesus Christ. You are imperfect/ a sinner. He is the Way to God/ eternal life. Love SofTy.

[oscarkipling]

As a Christian i associate myself with Jesus Christ and his Word the bible. I can't answer for the actions of Christians in my town, country, continent or Worldwide at this time - and even less in history.

From what you know of Jesus Christ and the bible - do these things you mention sound Christian?

You must focus on accepting, or rejecting, the sacrifice on the cross of Jesus Christ. You are imperfect/ a sinner. He is the Way to God/ eternal life. Love SofTy.


There is so much in Christianity that I don't know about much less agree with. How am I supposed to know which interpretation of a cryptic verse reveals its true meaning? Every nutjob has an interpretation and the most successful nutjobs have evidence, rationale, rules and a perspective to to veiw the world in order to "understand". I'm not a Christian,so I cant say that God told me anything about why those were "fake" Christians...so what can I say, none of those things seem right to me, they as true to thier respective interpretations of Christianity as anyone elses. I dont know what Christianity really is, honestly nobdy seem to...submitting to Christ...fine, but after that there is no real concensus.

[dan]

Only one-third of believers will be saved in the end, according to Prophecy. I wonder if the "nutjobs" will be a part of the saved?

ZECH 13:4 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the prophets shall be ashamed every one of his vision, when he hath prophesied; neither shall they wear a rough garment to deceive:
ZECH 13:5 But he shall say, I am no prophet, I am an husbandman; for man taught me to keep cattle from my youth.
ZECH 13:6 And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.
ZECH 13:7 Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, saith the LORD of hosts: smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: and I will turn mine hand upon the little ones.
ZECH 13:8 And it shall come to pass, that in all the land, saith the LORD, two parts therein shall be cut off and die; but the third shall be left therein.

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. (Matt 7:21)

Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? (Matt 7:22)

And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. (Matt 7:23)

Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: (Matt 7:24)

[oscarkipling]

Only one-third of believers will be saved in the end, according to Prophecy. I wonder if the "nutjobs" will be a part of the saved?

ZECH 13:4 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the prophets shall be ashamed every one of his vision, when he hath prophesied; neither shall they wear a rough garment to deceive:
ZECH 13:5 But he shall say, I am no prophet, I am an husbandman; for man taught me to keep cattle from my youth.
ZECH 13:6 And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.
ZECH 13:7 Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, saith the LORD of hosts: smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: and I will turn mine hand upon the little ones.
ZECH 13:8 And it shall come to pass, that in all the land, saith the LORD, two parts therein shall be cut off and die; but the third shall be left therein.

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. (Matt 7:21)

Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? (Matt 7:22)

And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. (Matt 7:23)

Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: (Matt 7:24)

I wonder as well.