PDA

View Full Version : Discussion Can you be a Liberal and a Christian?



Pages : [1] 2

Sig Sauer
Feb 24th 2011, 02:22 AM
I was wondering if there are any here who proclaim to be a Christian and yet will vote for someone that is Liberal (Usually a Democrat). for example postion's on Homosexuals, Abortion, to name a few, that are against what the Bible would teach. Maybe this does not bother you at all. I was just wondering. I myself always votes for the most conservative.
Thanks!!

Liquid Tension
Feb 24th 2011, 02:24 AM
This should be an interesting thread.

Moving to Contro in 5........4.......3.......2........

Reynolds357
Feb 24th 2011, 02:27 AM
I was wondering if there are any here who proclaim to be a Christian and yet will vote for someone that is Liberal (Usually a Democrat). for example postion's on Homosexuals, Abortion, to name a few, that are against what the Bible would teach. Maybe this does not bother you at all. I was just wondering. I myself always votes for the most conservative.
Thanks!!

In my opinion, Christians can not vote for politicians who murder babies and support gay rights. Thats just my 2 cents.

Firefighter
Feb 24th 2011, 02:27 AM
Absolutely. Nice handle BTW. I love Sigs. :D

Reynolds357
Feb 24th 2011, 02:29 AM
Absolutely. Nice handle BTW. I love Sigs. :D

Yeah, all good Christians murder babies.

Servant89
Feb 24th 2011, 02:30 AM
I was wondering if there are any here who proclaim to be a Christian and yet will vote for someone that is Liberal (Usually a Democrat). for example postion's on Homosexuals, Abortion, to name a few, that are against what the Bible would teach. Maybe this does not bother you at all. I was just wondering. I myself always votes for the most conservative.
Thanks!!

I am still a hardcore Republican (I need a Dumbo avatar) and I used to think no, you couldn't be both a liberal and a Christian. But not anymore. Because Christianity is not about how holy or righteous we are. It is about the blood and the grace of God. If the liberals cannot make it to heaven, neither the liars, neither the covetous, neither the ones that are full of pride, and specially, not the stinking donkeys, and if we go down the list, sooner or later we will get to you.

Gal 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

Gal 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

Another thing I want to avoid is to be like the religious person in Luke 18:9-14 that was left out of heaven for his "I am better than you" attitude.

Thank God for Christian Democrats (Hee - Haw) !!!!

Shalom

the rookie
Feb 24th 2011, 02:30 AM
I was wondering if there are any here who proclaim to be a Christian and yet will vote for someone that is Liberal (Usually a Democrat). for example postion's on Homosexuals, Abortion, to name a few, that are against what the Bible would teach. Maybe this does not bother you at all. I was just wondering. I myself always votes for the most conservative.
Thanks!!

The standard for what defines a true Christian isn't "Democrat" or "Republican", "liberal" or "conservative" - the standard is whether they have been "made alive, when they were dead in sins and trespasses" by God's grace - and because of that fact of God's kindness have chosen to be a disciple of Jesus, seeking to love Him with all of their heart, soul, mind and strength; and to be fiercely loyal to His words in obedience with tenderness.

Over time after the new birth into the love and life of Christ, our political inclinations become informed and shaped by God's heart and God's desires versus religious opinions and personal philosophies.

Servant89
Feb 24th 2011, 02:35 AM
The standard for what defines a true Christian isn't "Democrat" or "Republican", "liberal" or "conservative" - the standard is whether they have been "made alive, when they were dead in sins and trespasses" by God's grace - and because of that fact of God's kindness have chosen to be a disciple of Jesus, seeking to love Him with all of their heart, soul, mind and strength; and to be fiercely loyal to His words in obedience with tenderness.

Over time after the new birth into the love and life of Christ, our political inclinations become informed and shaped by God's heart and God's desires versus religious opinions and personal philosophies.

Never mind what I wrote, stick to the words of Rookie.... Those are far better than what I wrote.

Peace

Firefighter
Feb 24th 2011, 02:37 AM
Yeah, all good Christians murder babies.

If you believe Romans 13 then you must believe that God Himself put that "baby killin' democrat" in the oval office. ;)

the rookie
Feb 24th 2011, 02:39 AM
If you believe Romans 13 then you must believe that God Himself put that "baby killin' democrat" in the oval office. ;)

And Daniel 2 ("...raises up kings and tears them down..."). He'll put an Antichrist in office someday too - but I won't vote for him :lol:

Reynolds357
Feb 24th 2011, 02:45 AM
If you believe Romans 13 then you must believe that God Himself put that "baby killin' democrat" in the oval office. ;)
Yeah, the same way he put Saul on the throne. It is called Permissive will, not perfect will. If we demand immoral, scumbag, leaders who kill babies; God will allow us to have them.:rolleyes:

Firefighter
Feb 24th 2011, 02:47 AM
I don't think we can get permissive from the text of Romans...

the rookie
Feb 24th 2011, 02:52 AM
I don't think we can get permissive from the text of Romans...

Agreed. That seems like plain ol' Soveriegn Will.

Reynolds357
Feb 24th 2011, 02:55 AM
I don't think we can get permissive from the text of Romans...

You can get it from Samuel. God permitted a king to dwell over Israel that He did not wish them to have. That only gets complicated if you try to make it such. If God is 100% responsible for who our leaders are, why in the heck do we even waste time voting? Why not just sit on our rear ends and watch the news and see who God elected?

Reynolds357
Feb 24th 2011, 02:56 AM
Agreed. That seems like plain ol' Soveriegn Will.

Yeah, whatever you do don't blame anything on man. It is all the fault of the soverignty of God. I guess God murdered millions of Jews at the hands of Hitler? Man had nothing to do with that? It was all God's fault?

the rookie
Feb 24th 2011, 03:01 AM
You can get it from Samuel. God permitted a king to dwell over Israel that He did not wish them to have. That only gets complicated if you try to make it such. If God is 100% responsible for who our leaders are, why in the heck do we even waste time voting? Why not just sit on our rear ends and watch the news and see who God elected?

Post #10. The collision between sovereignty and free will is that we used our vote to speak for the unborn while God reserved the right to appoint His minister - and both answers were right according to His written and expressed will. Don't know that you have to appeal to the "permissive will", as that's a slippery slope of logic; God's perfect will is always sovereignly accomplished through the free will of broken, imperfect, and even wicked men opposed to His will. That's the stunning nature of His sovereign leadership of the earth, having His history move exactly according to His plan while allowing the "course of this world" to be directed by the "prince of the power of the air".

the rookie
Feb 24th 2011, 03:04 AM
Yeah, whatever you do don't blame anything on man. It is all the fault of the soverignty of God. I guess God murdered millions of Jews at the hands of Hitler? Man had nothing to do with that? It was all God's fault?

Didn't say that. It's all man's fault, for sure. Doesn't make God's will any less perfect or His leadership any less sovereign. But the man in office right now isn't much worse than the previous occupant of the office; and both of them God's ministers for our good that we are charged to pray for and bless.

Reynolds357
Feb 24th 2011, 03:06 AM
Post #10. The collision between sovereignty and free will is that we used our vote to speak for the unborn while God reserved the right to appoint His minister - and both answers were right according to His written and expressed will. Don't know that you have to appeal to the "permissive will", as that's a slippery slope of logic; God's perfect will is always sovereignly accomplished through the free will of broken, imperfect, and even wicked men opposed to His will. That's the stunning nature of His sovereign leadership of the earth, having His history move exactly according to His plan while allowing the "course of this world" to be directed by the "prince of the power of the air".

Permissive will of God is well established in theology. Was it God's perfect or permissive will for Adam to sin? Is it God's perfect or permissive will that allows people to reject His son and spend eternity in Hell?
If you think people dying and going to hell is the perfect will of God, you are the one standing on a slippery slope of logic.

Reynolds357
Feb 24th 2011, 03:09 AM
Didn't say that. It's all man's fault, for sure. Doesn't make God's will any less perfect or His leadership any less sovereign. But the man in office right now isn't much worse than the previous occupant of the office; and both of them God's ministers for our good that we are charged to pray for and bless.

Comparing Obama to Bush is about like comparing Churchill to Hitler.

the rookie
Feb 24th 2011, 03:09 AM
Permissive will of God is well established in theology. Was it God's perfect or permissive will for Adam to sin? Is it God's perfect or permissive will that allows people to reject His son and spend eternity in Hell?
If you think people dying and going to hell is the perfect will of God, you are the one standing on a slippery slope of logic.

Don't want to turn this into a philosophical thread about perfect v. permissive will, but it would be a great topic for discussion elsewhere if you have energy about it.

Reynolds357
Feb 24th 2011, 03:12 AM
Don't want to turn this into a philosophical thread about perfect v. permissive will, but it would be a great topic for discussion elsewhere if you have energy about it.

Maybe if it is God's perfect will I will be compelled to start a thread about it.

-SEEKING-
Feb 24th 2011, 03:13 AM
Maybe if it is God's perfect will I will be compelled to start a thread about it.

Dude! That was really good. :lol: :lol:

Carry on.............

Sorry for the interuption.

the rookie
Feb 24th 2011, 03:15 AM
Comparing Obama to Bush is about like comparing Churchill to Hitler.

Comparing President Obama to Hitler is just plain silly - and quite disrespectful. If Paul can charge his contemporaries to pray for Nero we can pray for (and bless, if you're going to take the Sermon on the Mount seriously) and honor President Obama - who is a much better man than Nero. I groan and am grieved by his policies and personal stance on abortion - but I can't compare him to Hitler, who was a wicked to the core, treacherous, Satan-worshipping occultist who sought to exterminate an entire race with murderous glee.

Reynolds357
Feb 24th 2011, 03:25 AM
Comparing President Obama to Hitler is just plain silly - and quite disrespectful. If Paul can charge his contemporaries to pray for Nero we can pray for (and bless, if you're going to take the Sermon on the Mount seriously) and honor President Obama - who is a much better man than Nero. I groan and am grieved by his policies and personal stance on abortion - but I can't compare him to Hitler, who was a wicked to the core, treacherous, Satan-worshipping occultist who sought to exterminate an entire race with murderous glee.

You are correct in one thing. I have absolutely no respect for Obama. I have been called a lot worse than "silly." Hitler murdered Jews. Obama puts justices on the court who will ensure the murder of innocent baby humans continues. There is no difference in the two. I would actually say murdering the innocent babies is actually the greater evil. Hitler was a Catholic and a professing Christian. You and I both know he was an evil occultist. We also know Obama is a Muslim. But since you give Obama the benefit of the doubt because he says he is a Christian; kindly give Hitler the same benefit of the doubt because he professed to be a catholic as well. At times, he professed to be agnostic, athiest, and anything else that benefited him. The more I think about he and Obama, the more they have in common.

I pray for Obama. I pray for him to change and turn from the error of his ways. I do not pray for him to be successful in his evil doing.

Sig Sauer
Feb 24th 2011, 03:25 AM
Hey Rookie,
Just an observation, but im getting the impression that you are not very conservative in your views. I know in your ealier post you mention that it does not matter. I beg to differ, it matters because we as Christians are Diffirent.
Im not judging but it appears you are a Obama supporter, or maybe once was? Correct me if im wrong here.
Thanks




Comparing President Obama to Hitler is just plain silly - and quite disrespectful. If Paul can charge his contemporaries to pray for Nero we can pray for (and bless, if you're going to take the Sermon on the Mount seriously) and honor President Obama - who is a much better man than Nero. I groan and am grieved by his policies and personal stance on abortion - but I can't compare him to Hitler, who was a wicked to the core, treacherous, Satan-worshipping occultist who sought to exterminate an entire race with murderous glee.

the rookie
Feb 24th 2011, 03:42 AM
Hey Rookie,
Just an observation, but im getting the impression that you are not very conservative in your views.
Im not judging but it appears you are a Obama supporter, or maybe once was? Correct me if im wrong here.
Thanks

Nope. I'm actually a fairly intense conservative, and am burdened that a staunchly pro-abortion president is currently in the office. I have made a personal vow to never vote for any pro-abortion candidates - one time, ever. I also massively disagree with the vast majority of President Obama's viewpoints. I think that his more recent statement about public unions and the Governor of Wisconsin was very revealing in terms of his true loyalties and agendas and can't grasp a bigger foreign policy disaster than the one perpetrated over the past few years. Allowing China during its state visit to mock us to our faces was the height of inexperience and incompetence.

That said, I take the scriptures seriously as they relate to the subject of blessing and loving your enemies, praying for and subjecting myself to God's authority structure - and recognizing President Obama as His minister for this season of time related to His purposes. Beyond that, I honor a man who has given his life in service to his country - in the same manner that I honor those who serve in our military, a few of whom are corrupt, perverse, foul, and incredibly dishonoring to women; yet they lay down their lives for my freedom sacrificing much for their country. I'm thankful for their service - and believe that our presidents are worthy of that same honor. Some are great, some are average - and some are seriously flawed men with really wicked policies...but I don't get to pick and choose which verses in the Bible I observe and which ones I ignore.

the rookie
Feb 24th 2011, 03:45 AM
You are correct in one thing. I have absolutely no respect for Obama. I have been called a lot worse than "silly." Hitler murdered Jews. Obama puts justices on the court who will ensure the murder of innocent baby humans continues. There is no difference in the two. I would actually say murdering the innocent babies is actually the greater evil. Hitler was a Catholic and a professing Christian. You and I both know he was an evil occultist. We also know Obama is a Muslim. But since you give Obama the benefit of the doubt because he says he is a Christian; kindly give Hitler the same benefit of the doubt because he professed to be a catholic as well. At times, he professed to be agnostic, athiest, and anything else that benefited him. The more I think about he and Obama, the more they have in common.

I'll take leaders set over me directly at their word until the facts come out and prove otherwise. And then I will be the first to speak out for the cause of Christ and truth for the sake of change. Leaders not set over me are a different story - especially when the truth / facts about Hitler emerged very early on.

Reynolds357
Feb 24th 2011, 03:46 AM
Nope. I'm actually a fairly intense conservative, and am burdened that a staunchly pro-abortion president is currently in the office. I have made a personal vow to never vote for any pro-abortion candidates - one time, ever. I also massively disagree with the vast majority of President Obama's viewpoints. I think that his more recent statement about public unions and the Governor of Wisconsin was very revealing in terms of his true loyalties and agendas and can't grasp a bigger foreign policy disaster than the one perpetrated over the past few years. Allowing China during its state visit to mock us to our faces was the height of inexperience and incompetence.

That said, I take the scriptures seriously as they relate to the subject of blessing and loving your enemies, praying for and subjecting myself to God's authority structure - and recognizing President Obama as His minister for this season of time related to His purposes. Beyond that, I honor a man who has given his life in service to his country - in the same manner that I honor those who serve in our military, a few of whom are corrupt, perverse, foul, and incredibly dishonoring to women; yet they lay down their lives for my freedom sacrificing much for their country. I'm thankful for their service - and believe that our presidents are worthy of that same honor. Some are great, some are average - and some are seriously flawed men with really wicked policies...but I don't get to pick and choose which verses in the Bible I observe and which ones I ignore.

Ok, if you had lived under Hitler, would you have shown him the same respect and considered him God's "minister?" Obama is about as much "God's minister" as Adolph Hitler was.

Reynolds357
Feb 24th 2011, 03:49 AM
I'll take leaders set over me directly at their word until the facts come out and prove otherwise. And then I will be the first to speak out for the cause of Christ and truth for the sake of change. Leaders not set over me are a different story - especially when the truth / facts about Hitler emerged very early on.

The facts about Obama emerged very early on as well. His brother and grandmother say he was and is a Muslim. Good enough evidence for me. The fact that Obama wishes to ensure the slaughter of babies for decades to come emerged early on as well.

Sig Sauer
Feb 24th 2011, 03:51 AM
Thanks Rookie!
I really appreciate the fast response!!



Nope. I'm actually a fairly intense conservative, and am burdened that a staunchly pro-abortion president is currently in the office. I have made a personal vow to never vote for any pro-abortion candidates - one time, ever. I also massively disagree with the vast majority of President Obama's viewpoints. I think that his more recent statement about public unions and the Governor of Wisconsin was very revealing in terms of his true loyalties and agendas and can't grasp a bigger foreign policy disaster than the one perpetrated over the past few years. Allowing China during its state visit to mock us to our faces was the height of inexperience and incompetence.

That said, I take the scriptures seriously as they relate to the subject of blessing and loving your enemies, praying for and subjecting myself to God's authority structure - and recognizing President Obama as His minister for this season of time related to His purposes. Beyond that, I honor a man who has given his life in service to his country - in the same manner that I honor those who serve in our military, a few of whom are corrupt, perverse, foul, and incredibly dishonoring to women; yet they lay down their lives for my freedom sacrificing much for their country. I'm thankful for their service - and believe that our presidents are worthy of that same honor. Some are great, some are average - and some are seriously flawed men with really wicked policies...but I don't get to pick and choose which verses in the Bible I observe and which ones I ignore.

the rookie
Feb 24th 2011, 03:52 AM
Ok, if you had lived under Hitler, would you have shown him the same respect and considered him God's "minister?" Obama is about as much "God's minister" as Adolph Hitler was.

Great question, hard to say. I look at the way the apostles responded to Nero, and I'm provoked. But probably I would have gone the way of Bonhoeffer, and helped to plot his assassination. Was it Martin Niemoller who wrote that meeting Hitler was as if he met the Antichrist personally? If I was convinced that my leader was the man Paul wrote about and Daniel prophesied, I would be doing more than laboring to end abortion.

Reynolds357
Feb 24th 2011, 03:55 AM
Great question, hard to say. I look at the way the apostles responded to Nero, and I'm provoked. But probably I would have gone the way of Bonhoeffer, and helped to plot his assassination. Was it Martin Niemoller who wrote that meeting Hitler was as if he met the Antichrist personally? If I was convinced that my leader was the man Paul wrote about and Daniel prophesied, I would be doing more than laboring to end abortion.

I don't get it. You would have tried to assassinate Hitler. He was God's ordained man? He was God's perfect will?

the rookie
Feb 24th 2011, 03:56 AM
The facts about Obama emerged very early on as well. His brother and grandmother say he was and is a Muslim. Good enough evidence for me. The fact that Obama wishes to ensure the slaughter of babies for decades to come emerged early on as well.

The info about his grandmother and brother is news to me.

Reagan was ambivalent at best on abortion - did you compare him to Hitler? George H.W. Bush appointed a pro-abortion Supreme Court justice to the bench. Hitler? The facts are emerging that some of the key leaders of the Chinese underground church are admitting to performing hundreds of abortions to honor the "one-child" policy - and truly didn't know that the babies were "babies" (bought into the Chinese scientific propaganda about fetuses) and are now horrified to discover that they helped facilitate murder. Are they Hitlers?

the rookie
Feb 24th 2011, 03:57 AM
I don't get it. You would have tried to assassinate Hitler. He was God's ordained man? He was God's perfect will?

You don't seem interested in having a conversation with me, you seem mostly interested in counter-pointing me. Have I offended you in some way here?

teddyv
Feb 24th 2011, 03:59 AM
This thread certainly got Godwinned pretty fast.

the rookie
Feb 24th 2011, 04:02 AM
Thanks Rookie!
I really appreciate the fast response!!

No problem - appreciate the topic you introduced.

the rookie
Feb 24th 2011, 04:04 AM
I pray for Obama. I pray for him to change and turn from the error of his ways. I do not pray for him to be successful in his evil doing.

You just added this point, which I really appreciate, and agree with 100%. I'm on the exact same page here.

the rookie
Feb 24th 2011, 04:23 AM
I don't get it. You would have tried to assassinate Hitler. He was God's ordained man? He was God's perfect will?

To answer your question, if President Obama was "Overlord Obama" or "Mein Fuhrer Obama" I might be taking an entirely different approach in this thread. That was my point earlier. We live in a Representative Republic. The President isn't the only one culpable for the mass murder that is happening right now in this system - lots of folks responsible for our current dilemma long before our current President swore his oath.

ProjectPeter
Feb 24th 2011, 04:42 AM
And just what with this being Bible Chat and all... maybe we could start seeing some of them there Bible Scripture? :)

Amos_with_goats
Feb 24th 2011, 04:48 AM
In honest examination of my political leanings, I have become less dogmatic about some things... and in other areas I see the thing I hate the most... hypocrisy.

I frankly find the Republican party to be too liberal... but will mostly vote with them.

HOWEVER, I must also honestly admit that I CAN understand the thinking behind some who support moderate democrats.

If one assumes that 'caring for the poor' includes entitlement programs, the democrats have the high ground... I do not see government in this role in scripture (it is for the Church in my reading).

I can see where some might understand this to be compassion that is consistent with Christ's teaching.

I can also see where one might make a compromise to vote for a democrat....
.... but feel it is an error because the party is on the wrong side of most issues.

Honesty compels me to admit that while I despise the democrats position on abortion.... the republican I voted for was only moderately pro-life.... :hmm:

This I know. While I may see the democrat party line as evil, and I may even hate the platform... I am not allowed to hate someone because of their political affiliation.

Matthew 5:21-22 (New King James Version)

Murder Begins in the Heart

“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.’ But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire.

RabbiKnife
Feb 24th 2011, 02:39 PM
Here's the hard, sad news.

We, the people of the United States are the government. We are. Not elected officials. We are. We make the laws. We judge the laws. We enforce the laws.

If you want to talk blood guilt for abortion, then every man and woman of legal age to vote shares that blood guilt. We choose. Whether you voted for or against a president or other elected leader, it is our government. If you are so all fired up about abortion, then quit your job and run for president and appoint whomever you want to the bench. That's what our country is all about.

Comparing anyone to Hitler, except for another despot of equal atrocity, is just stupid and without justification. The political systems of Nero, Hitler, and the US are not even compatible for the purposes of this attempted comparison.

Too many planks in eyes for my tastes.

Yes, one can be a liberal and be a Christian. One can be libertarian and be a Christian. One can be a communist and be Christian. One can be a socialist and be a Christian. One can be ultra-conservative and be a Christian. Jesus had former Roman employees (tax collector) and those that advocated the overthrow of the Roman government in his group of 12.

But one cannot hate and be a Christian.


Government is not someone else "out there." In the United States, government IS us.


Is there any wonder that the world thinks so little of Christians? Gandhi was right.

RollTide21
Feb 24th 2011, 02:54 PM
Yeah, the same way he put Saul on the throne. It is called Permissive will, not perfect will. If we demand immoral, scumbag, leaders who kill babies; God will allow us to have them.:rolleyes:What have Republicans done to outlaw Abortion? And I don't mean saying they are against it in the campaign.

RollTide21
Feb 24th 2011, 02:59 PM
And just what with this being Bible Chat and all... maybe we could start seeing some of them there Bible Scripture? :)Scripture? LOL. My guess is that Christ is perfectly APPALLED at how is name is being used in politics.

RollTide21
Feb 24th 2011, 03:04 PM
In my opinion, Christians can not vote for politicians who murder babies and support gay rights. Thats just my 2 cents.Gay rights or gay marriage? I support the LEGAL right for two gay people to be "married" (or a civil union...whatever you want to call it). I just don't believe that it should be sponsored by the Church.

Firefighter
Feb 24th 2011, 03:05 PM
Scripture? LOL. My guess is that Christ is perfectly APPALLED at how is name is being used in politics.


AMEN !!!

RabbiKnife
Feb 24th 2011, 03:09 PM
Gay rights or gay marriage? I support the LEGAL right for two gay people to be "married" (or a civil union...whatever you want to call it). I just don't believe that it should be sponsored by the Church.

Don't think anything in the law requires a church to recognize or perform gay marriage, so I don't understand all the fuss.

Should people be discriminated against because they choose to misuse their plumbing?

Uncle Bud
Feb 24th 2011, 03:19 PM
I was wondering if there are any here who proclaim to be a Christian and yet will vote for someone that is Liberal (Usually a Democrat). for example postion's on Homosexuals, Abortion, to name a few, that are against what the Bible would teach. Maybe this does not bother you at all. I was just wondering. I myself always votes for the most conservative.
Thanks!!

I wouldn't feel good about doing it. Nor would I vote for a canidate who was against helping the poor, regardless of party.

RollTide21
Feb 24th 2011, 03:20 PM
Don't think anything in the law requires a church to recognize or perform gay marriage, so I don't understand all the fuss.

Should people be discriminated against because they choose to misuse their plumbing?Exactly............................

Reynolds357
Feb 24th 2011, 03:32 PM
The info about his grandmother and brother is news to me.

Reagan was ambivalent at best on abortion - did you compare him to Hitler? George H.W. Bush appointed a pro-abortion Supreme Court justice to the bench. Hitler? The facts are emerging that some of the key leaders of the Chinese underground church are admitting to performing hundreds of abortions to honor the "one-child" policy - and truly didn't know that the babies were "babies" (bought into the Chinese scientific propaganda about fetuses) and are now horrified to discover that they helped facilitate murder. Are they Hitlers?

I was too young to vote for Reagan. Bush 1 appointed justices who were supposed to be pro life. Sometimes, you do not get what you think you are getting. Had Reagan and Bush 1 had fillabuster proof Republican Senates, they would have appointed staunch conservatives.

episkopos
Feb 24th 2011, 03:33 PM
I was wondering if there are any here who proclaim to be a Christian and yet will vote for someone that is Liberal (Usually a Democrat). for example postion's on Homosexuals, Abortion, to name a few, that are against what the Bible would teach. Maybe this does not bother you at all. I was just wondering. I myself always votes for the most conservative.
Thanks!!

Can one be a Christian and concerned with worldly affairs? Can one be a Christian and be conservative?

“No man that wars entangles himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier.” II Timothy 2:4

“If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sits on the right hand of God. Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth.” Colossians 3:1-2




If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. 2 Pet. 2:20

There is no such thing as a political party that represents the will of God. One must compromise with abortions on the one hand or warmongering on the other. A wise man stays away from worldly options.

Athanasius
Feb 24th 2011, 03:34 PM
In my opinion, Christians can not vote for politicians who murder babies and support gay rights. Thats just my 2 cents.

Very American :rolleyes: Should I just not vote, then?

RabbiKnife
Feb 24th 2011, 03:35 PM
Actually, all Presidents are supposed to appoint Justices to the Supreme Court of the United States who are pro-constitution, not pro any political agenda.

Reynolds357
Feb 24th 2011, 03:37 PM
Here's the hard, sad news.

We, the people of the United States are the government. We are. Not elected officials. We are. We make the laws. We judge the laws. We enforce the laws.

If you want to talk blood guilt for abortion, then every man and woman of legal age to vote shares that blood guilt. We choose. Whether you voted for or against a president or other elected leader, it is our government. If you are so all fired up about abortion, then quit your job and run for president and appoint whomever you want to the bench. That's what our country is all about.

Comparing anyone to Hitler, except for another despot of equal atrocity, is just stupid and without justification. The political systems of Nero, Hitler, and the US are not even compatible for the purposes of this attempted comparison.

Too many planks in eyes for my tastes.

Yes, one can be a liberal and be a Christian. One can be libertarian and be a Christian. One can be a communist and be Christian. One can be a socialist and be a Christian. One can be ultra-conservative and be a Christian. Jesus had former Roman employees (tax collector) and those that advocated the overthrow of the Roman government in his group of 12.

But one cannot hate and be a Christian.


Government is not someone else "out there." In the United States, government IS us.


Is there any wonder that the world thinks so little of Christians? Gandhi was right.

I agree, everyone who votes for pro-choice candidates has blood on their hands.

episkopos
Feb 24th 2011, 03:39 PM
I agree, everyone who votes for pro-choice candidates has blood on their hands.

And those who vote republican don't have blood on their hands????

Reynolds357
Feb 24th 2011, 03:40 PM
You don't seem interested in having a conversation with me, you seem mostly interested in counter-pointing me. Have I offended you in some way here?

Have not offended me. Sometimes, Counterpoint is the best form of debate.

RabbiKnife
Feb 24th 2011, 03:40 PM
I agree, everyone who votes for pro-choice candidates has blood on their hands.

No, we are the government. We all have blood on our hands. The current President is your President just as much as he is Barney Frank's.

Reynolds357
Feb 24th 2011, 03:41 PM
What have Republicans done to outlaw Abortion? And I don't mean saying they are against it in the campaign.

They have appointed pro life justices whenever the Democrats did not block them.
They outlawed partial birth abortion.
They cut funding for abortion.
They cut off funding for foreign abortions.

episkopos
Feb 24th 2011, 03:41 PM
This is a Christian forum correct? What of Christ? What political party does He vote for? Or does that enter the thought process?

Worldly men seek to change the world by worldly means. Godly men seek to alter the world through faith.

Reynolds357
Feb 24th 2011, 03:44 PM
Gay rights or gay marriage? I support the LEGAL right for two gay people to be "married" (or a civil union...whatever you want to call it). I just don't believe that it should be sponsored by the Church.

Either. Sodomy was a felony in every State in this nation for many years. Still on the books in most States, but we can not enforce it due to a meddling federal govt.

Neanias
Feb 24th 2011, 03:44 PM
Can one be a Christian and concerned with worldly affairs? Can one be a Christian and be conservative?

“No man that wars entangles himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier.” II Timothy 2:4

“If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sits on the right hand of God. Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth.” Colossians 3:1-2




If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. 2 Pet. 2:20

There is no such thing as a political party that represents the will of God. One must compromise with abortions on the one hand or warmongering on the other. A wise man stays away from worldly options.


Amen!

The greek word for Kingdom is also the word for Government! We are to be redeemed into a new government... Can you be part of two governments at the same time? Though we are in the world, we are not of the world, and not of it's government!

Let the dead bury the dead, but you, go preach the Kingdom, says Jesus.

Are we not crucified to the world, and the world crucified to us? This world is dead to us, why then worry about it's burial, when we can let those who are of it bury it and we can go and follow Christ?

Reynolds357
Feb 24th 2011, 03:45 PM
And those who vote republican don't have blood on their hands????

Those who vote for pro-life candidates do not have blood on their hands. I voted for Zell Miller many times. He was a pro-life Democrat.

Reynolds357
Feb 24th 2011, 03:46 PM
Very American :rolleyes: Should I just not vote, then?

Just vote for the right candidate.

the rookie
Feb 24th 2011, 03:46 PM
This is a Christian forum correct? What of Christ? What political party does He vote for? Or does that enter the thought process?

Worldly men seek to change the world by worldly means. Godly men seek to alter the world through faith.

We're part of a Representative Republic, not an Imperial State. The founding fathers handed us a voice in determining what kind of nation we get to live in - and what boundaries define our culture. There is a measure of restraint for wickedness - and the empowering and encouraging of righteousness - that is applied to politicians who have to answer to their constituents when the people exercise their right to vote. To abstain is your right - but you still have to answer for what you allowed related to the authority delegated to you by the system. That's how America works. From what I hear, there was a little shift towards Jesus within Canada's parliament a few years back - was that a bad thing?

RabbiKnife
Feb 24th 2011, 03:47 PM
If there is blood on anyone's hands, the blood is on the hands of the nation corporately.

We are the government, regardless of the political inclination of the person for whom we vote.

episkopos
Feb 24th 2011, 03:51 PM
We're part of a Representative Republic, not an Imperial State. The founding fathers handed us a voice in determining what kind of nation we get to live in - and what boundaries define our culture. There is a measure of restraint for wickedness - and the empowering and encouraging of righteousness - that is applied to politicians who have to answer to their constituents when the people exercise their right to vote. To abstain is your right - but you still have to answer for what you allowed related to the authority delegated to you by the system. That's how America works. From what I hear, there was a little shift towards Jesus within Canada's parliament a few years back - was that a bad thing?

A disciple has no lasting city on earth. He is a citizen of another country. He is a stranger and a pilgrim here....not a temporal patriot of a temporal state.

We are to be in the world but not OF it. How the world reacts to Jesus does not affect my allegiance to a worldly institution. Look to Christ. We are to pray for the government not get involved in it. We are to pray for sinners not get involved with them.

RabbiKnife
Feb 24th 2011, 03:55 PM
Then those Christians that Paul commended in Romans 16 that were the city administrators and treasurers and high government officials were sinful and Paul should not have commended them.

If you put your reliance in or on political governance, that you are OF the world.
If you fulfill your obligations as a citizen, including voting, then you are IN the world but not OF it. "IN" and "OF" have nothing to do with involvement but everything to do with reliance upon.

Reynolds357
Feb 24th 2011, 03:57 PM
No, we are the government. We all have blood on our hands. The current President is your President just as much as he is Barney Frank's.

Those who voted for the pro-choice candidates have blood on their hands. Vote the pocket books over Bible and thats what you get.

Neanias
Feb 24th 2011, 03:58 PM
A disciple has no lasting city on earth. He is a citizen of another country. He is a stranger and a pilgrim here....not a temporal patriot of a temporal state.

We are to be in the world but not OF it. How the world reacts to Jesus does not affect my allegiance to a worldly institution. Look to Christ. We are to pray for the government not get involved in it. We are to pray for sinners not get involved with them.

Amen to that brother!

Reynolds357
Feb 24th 2011, 03:58 PM
If there is blood on anyone's hands, the blood is on the hands of the nation corporately.

We are the government, regardless of the political inclination of the person for whom we vote.

Thats a bunch of garbage. We are responsible before God for our own actions.

Athanasius
Feb 24th 2011, 03:59 PM
Just vote for the right candidate.

Where I live, every candidate either supports gay rights or abortion (and most support both - I don't live in America, the land of endless political candidates). How about a thought experiment. Suppose I live in a country with two candidates, each could be elected on my vote. One opposes abortion but supports genocide, the other supports abortion but opposes genocide. Either candidate will engage in the act they support if elected. If I don't vote, one is elected president, the other vice-president, and both abortion and genocide are acted upon. Who do I vote for? (The 'point' is that responsible voting extends far behind the 'gay rights' and 'abortion' debate.)

Reynolds357
Feb 24th 2011, 04:03 PM
Then those Christians that Paul commended in Romans 16 that were the city administrators and treasurers and high government officials were sinful and Paul should not have commended them.

If you put your reliance in or on political governance, that you are OF the world.
If you fulfill your obligations as a citizen, including voting, then you are IN the world but not OF it. "IN" and "OF" have nothing to do with involvement but everything to do with reliance upon.

Rabbi, go vote for a pro murder candidate and make God happy. I am sure He just loves that.
Tell me what you know about the Christians listed in Romans 16. What were their political views? What was their platform?

Reynolds357
Feb 24th 2011, 04:04 PM
Where I live, every candidate either supports gay rights or abortion (and most support both - I don't live in America, the land of endless political candidates). How about a thought experiment. Suppose I live in a country with two candidates, each could be elected on my vote. One opposes abortion but supports genocide, the other supports abortion but opposes genocide. Either candidate will engage in the act they support if elected. If I don't vote, one is elected president, the other vice-president, and both abortion and genocide are acted upon. Who do I vote for? (The 'point' is that responsible voting extends far behind the 'gay rights' and 'abortion' debate.)

Abortion is genocide of the completely innocent. "Genocide" would be the lesser of the two evils.

Phish
Feb 24th 2011, 04:06 PM
Thats a bunch of garbage. We are responsible before God for our own actions.

Just a thought, when God Judged Israel (OT) did he judge them corporately, or individually?

episkopos
Feb 24th 2011, 04:09 PM
Thats a bunch of garbage. We are responsible before God for our own actions.

A priest makes intercession for HIS people. Look at Moses, He stood in the gap for his. He did the righteous thing. Would you do a Pontius Pilate on what you have avowed are your own people?

Doubly wrong!

Reynolds357
Feb 24th 2011, 04:10 PM
Just a thought, when God Judged Israel (OT) did he judge them corporately, or individually?

On this earth, they were judged corporately. On this earth, the just will be rained on with the un-just. At the Judgment, we are not held responsible for the actions of others, only our own actions.

Reynolds357
Feb 24th 2011, 04:11 PM
A priest makes intercession for HIS people. Look at Moses, He stood in the gap for his. He did the righteous thing. Would you do a Pontius Pilate on what you have avowed are your own people?

Doubly wrong!

I vote for the pro-life candidates. I am very politically active. I have not pulled back and washed my hands of anything.

alegator21
Feb 24th 2011, 04:12 PM
I just don't see Jesus as a part of any political party because the foundations of politics are not always built on Christianity. I tend to try to vote for the candidate that is closest to what i consider to be aligned with my beliefs.

episkopos
Feb 24th 2011, 04:13 PM
Here is a better way.

Love all men.

Serve the Lord.

Don't get partisan in worldly affairs (don't vote)

Stand in the gap for the ungodly.

Suffer for the bad decisions of others.

Pray for those who hate you.

Be a light to the world.

This is our political party...the kingdom of God. Spread the word!

episkopos
Feb 24th 2011, 04:14 PM
I just don't see Jesus as a part of any political party because the foundations of politics are not always built on Christianity. I tend to try to vote for the candidate that is closest to what i consider to be aligned with my beliefs.

There is NO temporal power that is aligned with Christ. The world is ANTI Christ. I wish that Christians could see this.

Athanasius
Feb 24th 2011, 04:16 PM
Abortion is genocide of the completely innocent. "Genocide" would be the lesser of the two evils.

Really? Let's give this some historical perspective then. If given the choice between Stalin and Obama, you would vote for Stalin?

episkopos
Feb 24th 2011, 04:17 PM
I vote for the pro-life candidates. I am very politically active. I have not pulled back and washed my hands of anything.

You deny the responsibility of the state of the world you live in. You absolve yourself. This is hypocritical.

keck553
Feb 24th 2011, 04:19 PM
does it really matter? I'm a sinner and a Christian, what does that make me?

episkopos
Feb 24th 2011, 04:24 PM
does it really matter? I'm a sinner and a Christian, what does that make me?

Confused???????

RabbiKnife
Feb 24th 2011, 04:24 PM
Honest.................

episkopos
Feb 24th 2011, 04:25 PM
We are called to be priests NOT politicians or partisans.

I see that many here would die for a temporal state at the drop of a hat.

But who would die for Christ? Who would die for the sin of others? Who would be burned at the stake for non-compliance with the world?

the rookie
Feb 24th 2011, 04:25 PM
A disciple has no lasting city on earth. He is a citizen of another country. He is a stranger and a pilgrim here....not a temporal patriot of a temporal state.

That's gnostic. Jesus returns to this planet - and the very next chapter of Hebrews (Heb. 12) states that, "Now this, “Yet once more,” indicates the removal of those things that are being shaken, as of things that are made, that the things which cannot be shaken may remain."

My choices and actions have real consequence and real continuity with the next age - related both to the kind of nation my children live in and the invitation to establish kingdom expressions that "may remain".


We are to be in the world but not OF it. How the world reacts to Jesus does not affect my allegiance to a worldly institution. Look to Christ. We are to pray for the government not get involved in it. We are to pray for sinners not get involved with them.

Daniel and Joseph being involved in government was quite helpful related to the times in which they lived.

Phish
Feb 24th 2011, 04:26 PM
does it really matter? I'm a sinner and a Christian, what does that make me?

Forgiven...............................

episkopos
Feb 24th 2011, 04:31 PM
That's gnostic. Jesus returns to this planet - and the very next chapter of Hebrews (Heb. 12) states that, "Now this, “Yet once more,” indicates the removal of those things that are being shaken, as of things that are made, that the things which cannot be shaken may remain."

My choices and actions have real consequence and real continuity with the next age - related both to the kind of nation my children live in and the invitation to establish kingdom expressions that "may remain".



Daniel and Joseph being involved in government was quite helpful related to the times in which they lived.

Firstly, that's biblical. Christians were put to death for NOT bowing to Caesar. They were apolitical. They preached the kingdom of God and often payed with their lives.

Of course that was before the idea of the "Christian" nation with it's Christian army, it's Christian artillery, smart bombs and sanctified nuclear weapons of mass destruction.

But here is the news...

It is not the new AMERICA which descends from heaven as the Bride of Christ.

The prayers of righteous men availeth much more on the real consequences of this life than all the vain attempts of men put together.

Would that believer's tried it.

But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God; for He has prepared a city for them. Heb. 11:6

Taken from the purported "gnostic" letter to the Hebrews.

notuptome
Feb 24th 2011, 04:36 PM
Prov 29:2 When the righteous are in authority the people rejoice, but when the wicked beareth rule the people mourn.

Vote your conscience or vote your pocketbook in either case you will give account to Christ for what you have done or have not done.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

the rookie
Feb 24th 2011, 04:43 PM
Firstly, that's biblical. Christians were put to death for NOT bowing to Caesar. They were apolitical. They preached the kingdom of God and often payed with their lives.

Apples and oranges. You're propagating a false equivalence between oppressive regimes and a representative republic. The choices made in one don't automatically translate in another. If Daniel 2, Acts 17, Romans 13 are correct - then Jesus appointed the form of government we now enjoy, and we'll have to answer to Him related to how we interact with it.


It is not the new AMERICA which descends from heaven as the Bride of Christ.

The prayers of righteous men availeth much more on the real consequences of this life than all the vain attempts of men put together.

Would that believer's tried it.

What are you talking about? Who has said that in here?

Reynolds357
Feb 24th 2011, 04:47 PM
Really? Let's give this some historical perspective then. If given the choice between Stalin and Obama, you would vote for Stalin?

I am not sure if Stalin was pro-abortion or anti-abortion. Lets assume he was anti-abortion. I would choose Stalin.

episkopos
Feb 24th 2011, 04:51 PM
Here is an early account on what Christians USED TO BE.

Excerpt from the epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus

For the Christians (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm) are distinguished from other men neither by country, nor language, nor the customs which they observe. For they neither inhabit cities of their own, nor employ a peculiar form of speech, nor lead a life which is marked out by any singularity. The course of conduct which they follow has not been devised by any speculation or deliberation of inquisitive men; nor do they, like some, proclaim themselves the advocates of any merely human (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm) doctrines. But, inhabiting Greek as well as barbarian cities, according as the lot of each of them has determined, and following the customs of the natives in respect to clothing, food, and the rest of their ordinary conduct, they display to us their wonderful and confessedly striking method of life. They dwell in their own countries, but simply as sojourners. As citizens, they share in all things with others, and yet endure all things as if foreigners. Every foreign land is to them as their native country, and every land of their birth as a land of strangers. They marry, as do all [others]; they beget children; but they do not destroy their offspring. They have a common table, but not a common bed. They are in the flesh, but they do not live after the flesh. 2 Corinthians 10:3 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/2co010.htm#verse3) They pass their days on earth, but they are citizens of heaven. Philippians 3:20 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/phi003.htm#verse20) They obey (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11181c.htm) the prescribed laws (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09053a.htm), and at the same time surpass the laws (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09053a.htm) by their lives. They love (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09397a.htm) all men (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm), and are persecuted (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11703a.htm) by all. They are unknown and condemned; they are put to death (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12565a.htm), and restored to life. 2 Corinthians 6:9 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/2co006.htm#verse9) They are poor, yet make many rich; 2 Corinthians 6:10 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/2co006.htm#verse10) they are in lack of all things, and yet abound in all; they are dishonoured, and yet in their very dishonour are glorified (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06585a.htm). They are evil (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm) spoken of, and yet are justified; they are reviled, and bless; 2 Corinthians 4:12 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/2co004.htm#verse12) they are insulted, and repay the insult with honour (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07462a.htm); they do good, yet are punished as evil-doers. When punished, they rejoice (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07131b.htm) as if quickened into life; they are assailed by the Jews (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08399a.htm) as foreigners, and are persecuted (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11703a.htm) by the Greeks; yet those who hate (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07149b.htm) them are unable to assign any reason for their hatred (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07149b.htm).

RabbiKnife
Feb 24th 2011, 04:53 PM
I am not sure if Stalin was pro-abortion or anti-abortion. Lets assume he was anti-abortion. I would choose Stalin.

Then you are demonstrating a lack of historical knowledge that is earth-shattering in its scope.

RollTide21
Feb 24th 2011, 04:55 PM
I am not sure if Stalin was pro-abortion or anti-abortion. Lets assume he was anti-abortion. I would choose Stalin.Wow..........................

Athanasius
Feb 24th 2011, 04:55 PM
I am not sure if Stalin was pro-abortion or anti-abortion. Lets assume he was anti-abortion. I would choose Stalin.

Stalin banned abortion, which is why I used him as an example (Hitler, the internets all-time favourite example, was pro-abortion, so I couldn't use him as an example). Do you believe it is a consistent Christian ethic to choose Genocide over abortion because with genocide, less 'innocent' people are killed? Let's say with abortion, 10 innocent babies are killed, and with genocide, 5 innocents are killed (with the other 5 being guilty of something, to entertain your notion). Are you a pragmatist or Utilitarian, such that you believe abortion to be the one moral instance upon which all moral instances are decided? Is the death of 5 innocents less evil than the death of 10? Should there be 10 righteous people in Sodom and Gomorrah, ought they be destroyed along with those who are guilty?

Vhayes
Feb 24th 2011, 04:55 PM
and we wonder why unbelievers are afraid of the Christian Right.

RabbiKnife
Feb 24th 2011, 04:59 PM
and we wonder why unbelievers are afraid of the Christian Right.

No, we wonder why unbelievers are afraid of Christians.

episkopos
Feb 24th 2011, 05:01 PM
No, we wonder why unbelievers are afraid of Christians.

Actually that would be...MODERN Christians!:cry:

Vhayes
Feb 24th 2011, 05:01 PM
No, we wonder why unbelievers are afraid of Christians.

To unbelievers they are one and the same.

Athanasius
Feb 24th 2011, 05:02 PM
No, we wonder why unbelievers are afraid of Christians.

As it says in the book of Christian morals, chapter 3 verse 2: Для матушки-России

Br. Barnabas
Feb 24th 2011, 05:04 PM
Firstly, that's biblical. Christians were put to death for NOT bowing to Caesar. They were apolitical. They preached the kingdom of God and often payed with their lives.

Of course that was before the idea of the "Christian" nation with it's Christian army, it's Christian artillery, smart bombs and sanctified nuclear weapons of mass destruction.

But here is the news...

It is not the new AMERICA which descends from heaven as the Bride of Christ.

The prayers of righteous men availeth much more on the real consequences of this life than all the vain attempts of men put together.

Would that believer's tried it.

But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God; for He has prepared a city for them. Heb. 11:6

Taken from the purported "gnostic" letter to the Hebrews.


The early Christians were political, however, most of them where not Roman citizens so they could not really be involved in politics. But they did have an interest in the political structure and who was the emperor. Read the act of the martyrs many of the martyrs when brought before the governor or perfect or what have you preached to them, trying to convert them to Christianity. They wanted Christian leaders or ones that were at least ok with Christianity. Peaching the Kingdom of God did not cost them their lives, not sacrificing to the Emperor is what cost them their lives. See the Romans didn't care what you believed or really even what you did as long as you paid your taxes and did not cause to much trouble, ie kept the peace/no fighting. It was not like the Roman Empire was out hunting for Christians most of the time, usually when someone was martyred, between the outbreaks of great persecutions, it was because they were in court for some other reason like a land dispute between neighbors or something like that and the other person, the non-christian, said and that guy is Christian. At which point the judge would say are you a Christian? If the Christian said no the matter was dropped, if he said yes, then the judge would ask agian. If he said no then it was dropped, if yes then the judge had the guard pull out his sword and ask again, so are you a Christian? If no then it was dropped, if yes, the Christian was killed.

Also we have examples from the early Church of soliders being Christians and being one of the ways the Gospel was spread all over the world.

Christians were not apolitical.

episkopos
Feb 24th 2011, 05:13 PM
The early Christians were political, however, most of them where not Roman citizens so they could not really be involved in politics. But they did have an interest in the political structure and who was the emperor. Read the act of the martyrs many of the martyrs when brought before the governor or perfect or what have you preached to them, trying to convert them to Christianity. They wanted Christian leaders or ones that were at least ok with Christianity. Peaching the Kingdom of God did not cost them their lives, not sacrificing to the Emperor is what cost them their lives. See the Romans didn't care what you believed or really even what you did as long as you paid your taxes and did not cause to much trouble, ie kept the peace/no fighting. It was not like the Roman Empire was out hunting for Christians most of the time, usually when someone was martyred, between the outbreaks of great persecutions, it was because they were in court for some other reason like a land dispute between neighbors or something like that and the other person, the non-christian, said and that guy is Christian. At which point the judge would say are you a Christian? If the Christian said no the matter was dropped, if he said yes, then the judge would ask agian. If he said no then it was dropped, if yes then the judge had the guard pull out his sword and ask again, so are you a Christian? If no then it was dropped, if yes, the Christian was killed.

Also we have examples from the early Church of soliders being Christians and being one of the ways the Gospel was spread all over the world.

Christians were not apolitical.

We don't ignore politics. We have to respect the rulers insofar as they don't go against the commands of Christ. But Christians DO NOT use temporal means to change the world. Power structures are temporal and as such are subject to the principalities which are demonic in nature.

The Christian's fight is in the heavenlies...not on the earth. The weapons of OUR warfare do not include F-16's. No, they are spiritual. Politics involves the use of force to convey it's policies. A Christian does not force people to do anything.

Since the Crusades and the Inquisition, I think Christianity has lost it's bearing and is now seeking to fight on the same level as it's perceived enemies (which we once loved rather than cluster bombed). Can you say Islam?

tango
Feb 24th 2011, 05:15 PM
I was wondering if there are any here who proclaim to be a Christian and yet will vote for someone that is Liberal (Usually a Democrat). for example postion's on Homosexuals, Abortion, to name a few, that are against what the Bible would teach. Maybe this does not bother you at all. I was just wondering. I myself always votes for the most conservative.
Thanks!!

I'm not a liberal although would identify as a libertarian. For all I dsagree with a lot of the push for gay rights and abortion I wouldn't say that automatically precludes a Christian from voting Democrat.

If we want to take a stance on bashing the politics of "the other side" it's easy to paint Republicans as a party that looks after the rich at the expense of the poor, promotes the idea of "devil take the hindmost" and simply leaves the weak and the lame to muddle through as best they can. From there it's easy to paint either party as being opposed to what Jesus stood for.

Another thing to consider is that my casting a vote for a candidate doesn't mean I agree with every single one of their policies, it just means I would rather have that candidate than any of the others. If I disagreed with 80% of what Candidate A said and 95% of what Candidate B said I'd still cast a vote for A.

episkopos
Feb 24th 2011, 05:20 PM
Isa 32:5 The vile personH5036 shall be noH3808 moreH5750 calledH7121 liberal,H5081 norH3808 the churlH3596 saidH559 to be bountiful.H7771

Isa 32:8 But the liberalH5081 devisethH3289 liberal things;H5081 and byH5921 liberal thingsH5081 shall he stand.H6965

Pro 11:25 The liberalH1293 soulH5315 shall be made fat:H1878 and he that waterethH7301 shall be wateredH3384 alsoH1571 himself.H1931

Tried looking up conservative but alas....no such thing in the bible! Coincidence? ;)

Vhayes
Feb 24th 2011, 05:25 PM
I was too young to vote for Reagan. Bush 1 appointed justices who were supposed to be pro life. Sometimes, you do not get what you think you are getting. Had Reagan and Bush 1 had fillabuster proof Republican Senates, they would have appointed staunch conservatives.

Serious question, Reynolds. Is this you opinion or do you have something to back it up?

tango
Feb 24th 2011, 05:27 PM
Either. Sodomy was a felony in every State in this nation for many years. Still on the books in most States, but we can not enforce it due to a meddling federal govt.

I suspect it's also difficult to enforce because as long as all parties consent there is no complaint to investigate.

If one party does not consent it can be dealt with in the same way as any other sexual assault.

TomH
Feb 24th 2011, 05:43 PM
I suspect it's also difficult to enforce because as long as all parties consent there is no complaint to investigate.

If one party does not consent it can be dealt with in the same way as any other sexual assault.

And I wouldn't want to be on the stake out team anyway!:o:eek:

tango
Feb 24th 2011, 05:47 PM
I am not sure if Stalin was pro-abortion or anti-abortion. Lets assume he was anti-abortion. I would choose Stalin.

So you'd be happy with the termination of untold numbers in gulags as long as no abortions took place?

Firefighter
Feb 24th 2011, 05:52 PM
So you'd be happy with the termination of untold numbers in gulags as long as no abortions took place?

Well sure, because one is murder and the other one is... uh... :dunno:

keck553
Feb 24th 2011, 06:35 PM
Confused???????

I'm not confused. Maybe just 'confusing?'

keck553
Feb 24th 2011, 06:38 PM
and we wonder why unbelievers are afraid of the Christian Right.

everyone can spot a Pharisee.

keck553
Feb 24th 2011, 06:39 PM
Then you are demonstrating a lack of historical knowledge that is earth-shattering in its scope.

to the tune of about 50 million I'd estimate.

My conclusion that everything under the sun is vanity, spittin' in the wind.

Fear God and keep His commmandments, for that is man's duty.

Br. Barnabas
Feb 24th 2011, 07:11 PM
We don't ignore politics. We have to respect the rulers insofar as they don't go against the commands of Christ. But Christians DO NOT use temporal means to change the world. Power structures are temporal and as such are subject to the principalities which are demonic in nature.

The Christian's fight is in the heavenlies...not on the earth. The weapons of OUR warfare do not include F-16's. No, they are spiritual. Politics involves the use of force to convey it's policies. A Christian does not force people to do anything.

Since the Crusades and the Inquisition, I think Christianity has lost it's bearing and is now seeking to fight on the same level as it's perceived enemies (which we once loved rather than cluster bombed). Can you say Islam?

Christians use any means they can to change the world, YOU might not use temporal means to change the world, but I do and so do others, actually pretty sure St James in his letter told us to use temporal and spiritual means to change the world. We don't just pray for people, we also give them food when they are in need. Look at the Liberal Theology movement of the Global South (Note Liberal has a totally different meaning than the US political meaning), they use temporal means to be treated fairly and try to make their societies a better place. The Church has used temporal as well as spiritual means to make the world a better place throught history, take the Francisan and Carmalite movements they not only pray for the sick, hungry, and dying but they help them they feed them, care for their wounds, and help them in the dying process. Have you already forgotten about Blessed Mother Teresa?

Did not Jesus "And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross" (Colossians 2:15).

Fighting on the Spiritual front is all good and well, but we cannot forget the fight in the physical world as well, we are suppose to be preparing the world for the Kingdom of God, changing and shaping the world to resemble the Kingdom of God.

keck553
Feb 24th 2011, 08:15 PM
Christians use any means they can to change the world, YOU might not use temporal means to change the world, but I do and so do others, actually pretty sure St James in his letter told us to use temporal and spiritual means to change the world. We don't just pray for people, we also give them food when they are in need. Look at the Liberal Theology movement of the Global South (Note Liberal has a totally different meaning than the US political meaning), they use temporal means to be treated fairly and try to make their societies a better place. The Church has used temporal as well as spiritual means to make the world a better place throught history, take the Francisan and Carmalite movements they not only pray for the sick, hungry, and dying but they help them they feed them, care for their wounds, and help them in the dying process. Have you already forgotten about Blessed Mother Teresa?

Did not Jesus "And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross" (Colossians 2:15).

Fighting on the Spiritual front is all good and well, but we cannot forget the fight in the physical world as well, we are suppose to be preparing the world for the Kingdom of God, changing and shaping the world to resemble the Kingdom of God.

God works through us by means certainly. The problem comes when people who claim to be His work through their own means.

episkopos
Feb 24th 2011, 08:28 PM
Christians use any means they can to change the world, YOU might not use temporal means to change the world, but I do and so do others, actually pretty sure St James in his letter told us to use temporal and spiritual means to change the world. We don't just pray for people, we also give them food when they are in need. Look at the Liberal Theology movement of the Global South (Note Liberal has a totally different meaning than the US political meaning), they use temporal means to be treated fairly and try to make their societies a better place. The Church has used temporal as well as spiritual means to make the world a better place throught history, take the Francisan and Carmalite movements they not only pray for the sick, hungry, and dying but they help them they feed them, care for their wounds, and help them in the dying process. Have you already forgotten about Blessed Mother Teresa?

Did not Jesus "And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross" (Colossians 2:15).

Fighting on the Spiritual front is all good and well, but we cannot forget the fight in the physical world as well, we are suppose to be preparing the world for the Kingdom of God, changing and shaping the world to resemble the Kingdom of God.

Palleeese! You are of course not hearing my argument at all. You are responding to your own ideas in your head. I never said to not help people physically. Do you think Paul was an esoteric guru? I was quoting him!

But you advocate blessing F-16's, and cluster bombs as a means of physically forcing your government's enemies into submission. I have seen videos of chaplains blessing bombs. This is NOT the same as giving bread to the hungry which of course I agree with. Give them bread with one hand and clobber them with the other. Do you take that as the meaning of Christ admonishing our left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing?

It is what you are advocating that gets in the way of people giving bread to the hungry...you are busy killing them in the name of a "Christian" government. Using your temporal means. You stand against Christ in so doing.

Christians are called to subvert the temporal powers. We are called to do not only the good but the perfect will of the Father.

episkopos
Feb 24th 2011, 08:49 PM
Guys, it's the ACTS of the apostles not the AXE of the apostles!:note:

RabbiKnife
Feb 24th 2011, 08:50 PM
Jeremiah 51:20...................

episkopos
Feb 24th 2011, 08:54 PM
Jeremiah 51:20...................

"You are my battle-ax and sword," says the LORD. "With you I will shatter nations and destroy many kingdoms.

I stand corrected....KILL KILL KILL the infidel. God's wills it! She IS a witch! KiLL them all!:giveup:

ImmenseDisciple
Feb 24th 2011, 09:12 PM
This is an interesting one for me.

Being from the UK it's all rather drastically different over here - I really wonder how some of you would cope.

For the many of you who have always had a very easy, black-and-white decision to make based on the single issue of abortion - it's interesting to imagine how you'd cope if it had never been made quite so easy for you.

In the elections a little while back, a friend of mine who spent a lot of his youth in the US was talking about which of the 2 major parties he was most inclined to give his vote. He put enormous significance on the fact that the Tories would pull back the maximum term at which a baby could be killed, by about 3 weeks. When I say enormous, I mean that it seemed as if this were the sole and exclusive issue which was informing his vote.

It kinda seems like a lot of Christians in the US would be similarly inclined - but this is, to my eyes, such a staggering, short-sighted attitude. The Tories are now, as they have always historically been, the party for the privileged, both in terms of their membership and their policies. I don't doubt that some would dispute this fact, so I'll just pose this as a hypothetical for those who feel called to single-issue voting:

Neither of the two major parties are opposed to abortion. Party A proposes a reduction in the maximum term at which one can be performed by a few weeks. They also wish to bring in a whole host of policies which are undeniably massively of benefit to the tiny wealthy elite and the big businesses that keep them rich, and similarly undeniably massively to the detriment of the vast majority of people, though those who will feel it hardest are naturally those in poverty, barely able to keep themselves and their families alive. Party B proposes no such reduction to the maximum term for abortions. They do, however, have policies which will support and raise standards of living for the vast majority, and have no noticable impact on the super-rich.

For which do you vote?

nb - please don't say it's an unrealistic scenario, because it's to a very real extent standard in the UK :D

episkopos
Feb 24th 2011, 09:25 PM
This is an interesting one for me.

Being from the UK it's all rather drastically different over here - I really wonder how some of you would cope.

For the many of you who have always had a very easy, black-and-white decision to make based on the single issue of abortion - it's interesting to imagine how you'd cope if it had never been made quite so easy for you.

In the elections a little while back, a friend of mine who spent a lot of his youth in the US was talking about which of the 2 major parties he was most inclined to give his vote. He put enormous significance on the fact that the Tories would pull back the maximum term at which a baby could be killed, by about 3 weeks. When I say enormous, I mean that it seemed as if this were the sole and exclusive issue which was informing his vote.

It kinda seems like a lot of Christians in the US would be similarly inclined - but this is, to my eyes, such a staggering, short-sighted attitude. The Tories are now, as they have always historically been, the party for the privileged, both in terms of their membership and their policies. I don't doubt that some would dispute this fact, so I'll just pose this as a hypothetical for those who feel called to single-issue voting:

Neither of the two major parties are opposed to abortion. Party A proposes a reduction in the maximum term at which one can be performed by a few weeks. They also wish to bring in a whole host of policies which are undeniably massively of benefit to the tiny wealthy elite and the big businesses that keep them rich, and similarly undeniably massively to the detriment of the vast majority of people, though those who will feel it hardest are naturally those in poverty, barely able to keep themselves and their families alive. Party B proposes no such reduction to the maximum term for abortions. They do, however, have policies which will support and raise standards of living for the vast majority, and have no noticable impact on the super-rich.

For which do you vote?

nb - please don't say it's an unrealistic scenario, because it's to a very real extent standard in the UK :D

If you get it wrong you will forever be.....wait a minute, who says a Christian has to vote? :)

tango
Feb 24th 2011, 09:36 PM
If you get it wrong you will forever be.....wait a minute, who says a Christian has to vote? :)

Without wishing to take a side on the specifics of the UK political situation, if one doesn't vote one does lose the right to complain at the outcome of the vote. Even if a vote is merely cast for the lesser of two evils I would say we have as much of a duty as anyone else to vote.

the rookie
Feb 24th 2011, 09:42 PM
For which do you vote?

nb - please don't say it's an unrealistic scenario, because it's to a very real extent standard in the UK :D

I have compassion on the nuances and the difficulties you have to navigate - but one of the reasons that there is such "black and white-ness" over here is due in part to the now reviled Mssrs. Falwell and Dobson. The "Moral Majority" that emerged in the 80's applied the pressure to the Republican party (and, as I said, the previously ambivalent President Reagan) to begin caring about abortion and other key social issues, in which the "two-legged stool" (economy & foreign policy) became "three-legged".

Whatever one feels 30 years later about the Moral Majority (and many of the emerging church guys really despise them), they rallied believers to engage politically on these issues in a way that really revolutionized politics here - for better or for worse. Now you get a guy like Kerry faking that he cares about religion and Obama mastering the "spiritual language" that so many Democrats fumbled on previously - but is the alternative (the moral ambivalence of politicians in the 70's and the Burger Court) preferable?

In other words, how many of the difficulties in the UK are knit to church disengagement from the political arena? I don't know the answer to this question - I'm honestly curious; but I suspect that (related to the rise of radical Islam there) the answer isn't great.

the rookie
Feb 24th 2011, 09:43 PM
Without wishing to take a side on the specifics of the UK political situation, if one doesn't vote one does lose the right to complain at the outcome of the vote. Even if a vote is merely cast for the lesser of two evils I would say we have as much of a duty as anyone else to vote.

One loses the right to complain, and I suspect one has to talk to Jesus about it someday related to what we allowed and permitted on our watch.

ImmenseDisciple
Feb 24th 2011, 09:44 PM
If you get it wrong you will forever be.....wait a minute, who says a Christian has to vote? :)

Australia says so!!
As I understand it, in Australia voting is mandatory, Christian or otherwise. :)

episkopos
Feb 24th 2011, 09:46 PM
Without wishing to take a side on the specifics of the UK political situation, if one doesn't vote one does lose the right to complain at the outcome of the vote. Even if a vote is merely cast for the lesser of two evils I would say we have as much of a duty as anyone else to vote.


We neither murmur nor complain. Such was the behaviour of the people in the wilderness where God was displeased with them. We will pray for whatever government is in place.

Our citizenship is not here.

episkopos
Feb 24th 2011, 09:48 PM
Australia says so!!
As I understand it, in Australia voting is mandatory, Christian or otherwise. :)

AHHH An excelent chance to stand up for the kingdom! We will not choose from a selection of secular powers. We are called to overcome them all.

Athanasius
Feb 24th 2011, 09:50 PM
Not voting can be just as 'irresponsible' as voting for a candidate who supports abortion (as some of you say). The 'ethics of voting' extend far beyond black-and-white issues. Mind you, the last time I went down this road someone opted to vote for Stalin...

ImmenseDisciple
Feb 24th 2011, 09:52 PM
I have compassion on the nuances and the difficulties you have to navigate - but one of the reasons that there is such "black and white-ness" over here is due in part to the now reviled Mssrs. Falwell and Dobson. The "Moral Majority" that emerged in the 80's applied the pressure to the Republican party (and, as I said, the previously ambivalent President Reagan) to begin caring about abortion and other key social issues, in which the "two-legged stool" (economy & foreign policy) became "three-legged".

Whatever one feels 30 years later about the Moral Majority (and many of the emerging church guys really despise them), they rallied believers to engage politically on these issues in a way that really revolutionized politics here - for better or for worse. Now you get a guy like Kerry faking that he cares about religion and Obama mastering the "spiritual language" that so many Democrats fumbled on previously - but is the alternative (the moral ambivalence of politicians in the 70's and the Burger Court) preferable?

In other words, how many of the difficulties in the UK are knit to church disengagement from the political arena? I don't know the answer to this question - I'm honestly curious; but I suspect that (related to the rise of radical Islam there) the answer isn't great.

It's heartening to know that, regardless of any ultimate downside that may come about, a genuine shift in politics can be brought about.

I'd say that church disengagement isn't exactly the issue, and certainly radical Islam doesn't have a great deal of bearing - the issue would be that the UK either is or is largely understood to be a "post-Christian" society. The prevalent climate presented in all media, regardless of affiliation, is that scientific & intellectual credibility demand that faith be looked down upon. Most politicians are terrified to talk about religion. Tony Blair may come across as being openly a believer - but even he only really started talking about any faith he may or may not have AFTER he left the job. I guess it's seen as a lose-lose "approach" to take. You call yourself a Christian, entirely alienate those who believe it makes you a fool, or who disagree with your specific religion, and have yourself held to much more absolute account, and under much greater scrutiny from those of the same faith.

It is, frankly, a pretty ugly situation. Politics often seems to sum up a great deal of what is wrong with this world, to me...

Vhayes
Feb 24th 2011, 09:55 PM
I think it is also worthy of note that the "Moral Majority" had it's genesis in the Civil Rights movement. And it was on the segregationist side of that battle.

ImmenseDisciple
Feb 24th 2011, 09:57 PM
Not voting can be just as 'irresponsible' as voting for a candidate who supports abortion (as some of you say). The 'ethics of voting' extend far beyond black-and-white issues. Mind you, the last time I went down this road someone opted to vote for Stalin...

I'd have to agree entirely with this... Unless the system is absolutely broken, you should vote for the candidate who presents the least awful (or "best", if you insist) overall package. And if the system IS absolutely broken, Christians should be, as with all of the nigh-infinite things about society that need to change, right at the front, and working to change it.

the rookie
Feb 24th 2011, 10:18 PM
Not voting can be just as 'irresponsible' as voting for a candidate who supports abortion (as some of you say). The 'ethics of voting' extend far beyond black-and-white issues. Mind you, the last time I went down this road someone opted to vote for Stalin...

I agree with the first part of your premise - but simply find the murder of babies to be so abhorrent that any candidate that aligns themselves with that viewpoint, to me, must be considered intellectually suspect and morally bankrupt, or at least morally ambiguous. Now - the politician that takes a stand for life as a "politically calculated" move related to a constituency is in the same category in my book; but it's harder to get a handle on who that might be. There are genuinely principled men amongst the politicians (Sam Brownback comes to mind) but it's up to me as a citizen to do my homework and be as informed as possible before I exercise my judgment in the voting booth.

tango
Feb 24th 2011, 10:21 PM
We neither murmur nor complain. Such was the behaviour of the people in the wilderness where God was displeased with them.

Back then God hadn't given anyone the right to vote for their leader. Things are different now, and I regard voting as being just as much a part of stewardship as the use of my other resources.



We will pray for whatever government is in place. Our citizenship is not here.

Agreed.

tango
Feb 24th 2011, 10:23 PM
I agree with the first part of your premise - but simply find the murder of babies to be so abhorrent that any candidate that aligns themselves with that viewpoint, to me, must be considered intellectually suspect and morally bankrupt, or at least morally ambiguous. Now - the politician that takes a stand for life as a "politically calculated" move related to a constituency is in the same category in my book; but it's harder to get a handle on who that might be. There are genuinely principled men amongst the politicians (Sam Brownback comes to mind) but it's up to me as a citizen to do my homework and be as informed as possible before I exercise my judgment in the voting booth.

Of course for good measure some politicians make promises before being elected only to renege on them immediately after being elected. One of the Labour party manifestos over here looked as if it had been written to contain promises that had been worded specifically with breaking them in mind, in the sense that the promise was broken in every practical sense of the word but in a strict legal sense it had not.

the rookie
Feb 24th 2011, 10:27 PM
I think it is also worthy of note that the "Moral Majority" had it's genesis in the Civil Rights movement. And it was on the segregationist side of that battle.

That's a broad brush with which to paint Mr. Falwell, who served as the "face" of the Moral Majority but didn't necessarily drive the organization, strategy, etc. Conflating the two (Falwell's early questioning of the theology of the Civil Rights leaders & the Moral Majority itself) isn't exactly fair.

Not saying Falwell wasn't in one sense a product of his times with real weaknesses (think: conservatism = Christian, liberal = the devil) - but I don't think one would have necessarily been wrong to question some of the theology behind the Civil Rights movement, as you and I noted on another thread related to the current condition / culture of the American Black Male. Falwell's main issues were knit to the liberal ideas coming from different Civil Rights leaders, and as we've seen from Mssrs. Jackson and Sharpton, he sort of had a point.

the rookie
Feb 24th 2011, 10:34 PM
It's heartening to know that, regardless of any ultimate downside that may come about, a genuine shift in politics can be brought about.

It takes leadership - and anyone that steps into the leadership vacuum will be, by nature, flawed, broken, weak, and human - but flawed leadership is better than no leadership in my book. Who in the UK carries the weight to lead? England needs another Wesley, Whitfield...or a Wilberforce.


I'd say that church disengagement isn't exactly the issue, and certainly radical Islam doesn't have a great deal of bearing - the issue would be that the UK either is or is largely understood to be a "post-Christian" society. The prevalent climate presented in all media, regardless of affiliation, is that scientific & intellectual credibility demand that faith be looked down upon. Most politicians are terrified to talk about religion. Tony Blair may come across as being openly a believer - but even he only really started talking about any faith he may or may not have AFTER he left the job. I guess it's seen as a lose-lose "approach" to take. You call yourself a Christian, entirely alienate those who believe it makes you a fool, or who disagree with your specific religion, and have yourself held to much more absolute account, and under much greater scrutiny from those of the same faith.

Great analysis of the situation - matches up with what many of my UK friends tell me. Pockets of fervent, sincere, passionate Christianity, but much disconnect. I appreciate what Pete Greig is doing over there, turning empty churches into prayer rooms so that Muslims can't buy them and turn them into mosques.


It is, frankly, a pretty ugly situation. Politics often seems to sum up a great deal of what is wrong with this world, to me...

Well, read some Francis Schaeffer. It runs much deeper than politics...

the rookie
Feb 24th 2011, 10:35 PM
Of course for good measure some politicians make promises before being elected only to renege on them immediately after being elected. One of the Labour party manifestos over here looked as if it had been written to contain promises that had been worded specifically with breaking them in mind, in the sense that the promise was broken in every practical sense of the word but in a strict legal sense it had not.

Grrr....ImmenseDisciple said it well - what's the "least awful" option?

Athanasius
Feb 24th 2011, 10:36 PM
I agree with the first part of your premise - but simply find the murder of babies to be so abhorrent that any candidate that aligns themselves with that viewpoint, to me, must be considered intellectually suspect and morally bankrupt, or at least morally ambiguous. Now - the politician that takes a stand for life as a "politically calculated" move related to a constituency is in the same category in my book; but it's harder to get a handle on who that might be. There are genuinely principled men amongst the politicians (Sam Brownback comes to mind) but it's up to me as a citizen to do my homework and be as informed as possible before I exercise my judgment in the voting booth.

Sure, I haven't yet said otherwise ;) (my 'big' point being that voting is a responsibility for a reason... It's difficult.)

the rookie
Feb 24th 2011, 10:39 PM
Sure, I haven't yet said otherwise ;) (my 'big' point being that voting is a responsibility for a reason... It's difficult.)

Absolutely - figured we were on the same page; I just love clarity :)

episkopos
Feb 24th 2011, 10:42 PM
I believe the role of a Christian is to alter the world on a civilization level not a society level.

When a people is holy, righteousness goes out into the land. Men used to fear Christians...but no longer. The sick would line the streets for the chance to be healed...but no longer.

The lowering of our sights and standards has made it necessary for us to do what we are to inspire the common folk to do. We are become very common folk indeed now with our only hope of an impact being a numerical one. We have become as powerless as the next man and must now rely on human means.

But a few men with faith can change the world. Where there is holiness, men don't think of doing wrong. A revival brings a lowering of crime to the environs as a matter of taking the heavenly strongholds.

How do we fight abortion? By being spiritual in Christ together. How do we fight crime? By being a spiritual force in the world that displaces the influence of crime. That is the way of Christ.

That is what is meant to be light and salt. We preserve the world through holiness not by sinking to the level of the unbelievers and hoping for a moral majority.

I realize that I am probably making no sense to most here.....but there it is!

Athanasius
Feb 24th 2011, 10:46 PM
Absolutely - figured we were on the same page; I just love clarity :)

I love clarity as much as I love Francis Schaeffer :}

the rookie
Feb 24th 2011, 10:47 PM
When a people is holy, righteousness goes out into the land. Men used to fear Christians...but no longer. The sick would line the streets for the chance to be healed...but no longer.

I agree with you, but why does it have do be "either/or"? Why not "both/and"?

It seems as if the majority of your post is sound scripturally - but this line:


I believe the role of a Christian is to alter the world on a civilization level not a society level.

Have a verse for that?

episkopos
Feb 24th 2011, 10:55 PM
I agree with you, but why does it have do be "either/or"? Why not "both/and"?

It seems as if the majority of your post is sound scripturally - but this line:



Have a verse for that?

Every time it says world!!! In the world there are many societies. But we are to overcome the world. The societies will fall into line in due course.

For God so loved the world.....The world (cosmos) is our area of battle. We serve Christ on that plane.

and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,

This affects civilization not just a society or culture.

Otherwise we see Christianity being absorbed into the local culture. This is what has taken place. Our service was to be for mankind, but we have lowered that to serving a certain culture or society. We have lost our footing and stumbled out of power.

notuptome
Feb 24th 2011, 10:57 PM
Jesus said that we cannot have two masters. In all things we must honor Christ. Where liberal, progressive or conservative ideologies contradict the purity and holiness of Christ we must turn from them.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

the rookie
Feb 24th 2011, 10:57 PM
Every time it says world!!! In the world there are many societies. But we are to overcome the world. The societies will fall into line in due course.

For God so loved the world.....The world (cosmos) is our area of battle. We serve Christ on that plane.

and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,

This affects civilization not just a society or culture.

Otherwise we see Christianity being absorbed into the local culture. This is what has taken place. Our service was to be for mankind, but we have lowered that to serving a certain culture or society. We have lost our footing and stumbled out of power.


I happen to think that cultural disengagement is a bad, bad idea. One can engage with the culture (and with society) without being of the culture, as Paul demonstrated ably.

ImmenseDisciple
Feb 24th 2011, 11:00 PM
I realize that I am probably making no sense to most here.....but there it is!

A lot of what you say really does make sense to me, but I feel like there's something you're missing. I guess I'm with the rookie on this, in that to me saying:


I believe the role of a Christian is to alter the world on a civilization level not a society level.
...is akin to saying "I'm less interested in the power of Christ transforming my community than I am in the power of Christ transforming the whole world."
While it's true that there's bigger goals we should ultimately keep in focus, we don't get to the end of the race by ignoring the hurdles along the way.

the rookie
Feb 24th 2011, 11:10 PM
...is akin to saying "I'm less interested in the power of Christ transforming my community than I am in the power of Christ transforming the whole world."
While it's true that there's bigger goals we should ultimately keep in focus, we don't get to the end of the race by ignoring the hurdles along the way.

Well said - I agree - both / and. I want to see revival, holiness, a church that provokes and moves in real power, authority, and disruptive love; along the way I want to do the little things that come with enjoying the privileges of being an American citizen in a manner that honors Christ. Going for big things in God doesn't negate the validity of doing the little things too. Voting seems like a little thing, but that and jury duty are two key responsibilities I say "yes" to if I'm going to enjoy being defended by the American military, subject myself to American authority, engage with American governance, etc. etc.

episkopos
Feb 24th 2011, 11:12 PM
It's like this.

There is a federal government and a provincial or state government.

The federal government makes laws for everyone and dictates the direction of the entire nation.

A Christian is to operate on that larger scale....on the federal government of the universe...the kingdom of God.

The lower governments can choose some differences in details but the big picture is handled on the federal level.

The army, the FBI, the CIA etc... are on a federal level.


So it is with the principalities. They rule over the whole world. They influence the whole world. Countries show different flavours but it is the worldly powers that rule.

We are to displace THOSE powers in Christ Jesus.

Vhayes
Feb 24th 2011, 11:12 PM
That's a broad brush with which to paint Mr. Falwell, who served as the "face" of the Moral Majority but didn't necessarily drive the organization, strategy, etc. Conflating the two (Falwell's early questioning of the theology of the Civil Rights leaders & the Moral Majority itself) isn't exactly fair.

Not saying Falwell wasn't in one sense a product of his times with real weaknesses (think: conservatism = Christian, liberal = the devil) - but I don't think one would have necessarily been wrong to question some of the theology behind the Civil Rights movement, as you and I noted on another thread related to the current condition / culture of the American Black Male. Falwell's main issues were knit to the liberal ideas coming from different Civil Rights leaders, and as we've seen from Mssrs. Jackson and Sharpton, he sort of had a point.

It wasn't necessarily Mr.Falwell I had in mind. It was his predecessors. Men such as T. H. Masters, Archer Weniger, Billy Hargis and John Rice.

episkopos
Feb 24th 2011, 11:15 PM
Remember that Christianity actually spreads under persecution. Why would we vote to avoid Christian growth? We are to have no say in the flavour of the worldly affairs presented to us. The whole kingdom needs changing.

Why prune a branch of a tree that is dead?

keck553
Feb 24th 2011, 11:15 PM
I think it is also worthy of note that the "Moral Majority" had it's genesis in the Civil Rights movement.
Isn't it interesting, as if 'majority' somehow gives anything credibility? I keep reminding myself every time I see a poll that God's ways are based on a majority of 1.

Down here on earth, that 'majority' sometimes translates to 7000. Or even eight.


And it was on the segregationist side of that battle.

There are only two races on earth. Children of God and not children of God. Of course God has His outstreched arms open to the latter all the live-long-day.

amazzin
Feb 24th 2011, 11:17 PM
I know in Canada it is impossible to do both together. Liberals values and Christian values are diametrically opposed to each other in areas such as abortion, same-sex marriage and so on. Most of all the contradict Biblical values and beliefs

ImmenseDisciple
Feb 24th 2011, 11:19 PM
It's like this.

There is a federal government and a provincial or state government.

The federal government makes laws for everyone and dictates the direction of the entire nation.

A Christian is to operate on that larger scale....on the federal government of the universe...the kingdom of God.

The lower governments can choose some differences in details but the big picture is handled on the federal level.

The army, the FBI, the CIA etc... are on a federal level.


So it is with the principalities. They rule over the whole world. They influence the whole world. Countries show different flavours but it is the worldly powers that rule.

We are to displace THOSE powers in Christ Jesus.

I'm reminded of acts: "You will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth"
I can't see why we should focus on the ends of the earth at the expense of Jerusalem. Do you have any scripture which might help me understand where you're coming from?

episkopos
Feb 24th 2011, 11:25 PM
A man cannot serve 2 masters....

No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of [this] life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier.

If a man works at the lower level he will NOT influence the higher one.

If a man works on the higher level both will be influenced.

That is why Jesus said..

SEEK FIRST the kingdom of God and HIS righteousness and all the other issues will be dealt with! (paraphrase)

I'm afraid that if we are waiting for the other saints to do this, then that leaves us out as potential saints. We give up our birthright (new birth) in this way.

ImmenseDisciple
Feb 24th 2011, 11:31 PM
Remember that Christianity actually spreads under persecution. Why would we vote to avoid Christian growth? We are to have no say in the flavour of the worldly affairs presented to us. The whole kingdom needs changing.

Why prune a branch of a tree that is dead?

Sorry brother - I have issues with both of your points.

I think with the first it's probably just that your message is a little muddled for me: "Remember that Christianity actually spreads under persecution. Why would we vote to avoid Christian growth?" suggests that refusing to vote will increase persecution, which you determine a positive thing, given that the Faith grows under persecution. I don't see why refusing to vote will increase persecution, and if it did, I can't see how we wouldn't be under an astronomical weight of responsibility to vote, and prevent the persecution. For example: the persecuted church in China has been the fastest growing church of recent years. If God gave me the opportunity to immediately cease all of the murder and terror that has dogged His people in China, I would not hesitate for a second. Are you suggesting you disagree with this?

As for your second point - the metaphor doesn't really makes sense if you are trying to extend it from that of Christ - is the branch in your imagery to be the whole of America, or the Christian church in America... Please explain.

Amos_with_goats
Feb 24th 2011, 11:39 PM
Has anyone else thought about why someone might come to take a position other then their own?

I remember a poster here named 'Always'. She held completely opposite views from my own. We had several PM conversations.

I still see her positions as wrong, but learned a lot about the reasons for her views from the discussion. :) I am thankful to gain understanding like what came from those conversations... anyone here know what I am talking about?

In honest examination of my political leanings, I have become less dogmatic about some things... and in other areas I see the thing I hate the most... hypocrisy.

I frankly find the Republican party to be too liberal... but will mostly vote with them.

HOWEVER, I must also honestly admit that I CAN understand the thinking behind some who support moderate democrats.

If one assumes that 'caring for the poor' includes entitlement programs, the democrats have the high ground... I do not see government in this role in scripture (it is for the Church in my reading).

I can see where some might understand this to be compassion that is consistent with Christ's teaching.

I can also see where one might make a compromise to vote for a democrat....
.... but feel it is an error because the party is on the wrong side of most issues.

Honesty compels me to admit that while I despise the democrats position on abortion.... the republican I voted for was only moderately pro-life.... :hmm:

This I know. While I may see the democrat party line as evil, and I may even hate the platform... I am not allowed to hate someone because of their political affiliation.

Matthew 5:21-22 (New King James Version)

Murder Begins in the Heart

“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.’ But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire.

the rookie
Feb 24th 2011, 11:44 PM
It wasn't necessarily Mr.Falwell I had in mind. It was his predecessors. Men such as T. H. Masters, Archer Weniger, Billy Hargis and John Rice.

Don't know enough to speak intelligently here, so I have no clue if those men were ant-Civil Rights segregationists. WAY before my time :) I also didn't know they were influential in driving the Moral Majority. From what I knew of Weniger, his big issue was liberal thought v. conservative thought - which would naturally make him adversarial to some within the Civil Rights movement...

the rookie
Feb 24th 2011, 11:47 PM
A man cannot serve 2 masters....

No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of [this] life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier.

If a man works at the lower level he will NOT influence the higher one.

If a man works on the higher level both will be influenced.

That is why Jesus said..

SEEK FIRST the kingdom of God and HIS righteousness and all the other issues will be dealt with! (paraphrase)

I'm afraid that if we are waiting for the other saints to do this, then that leaves us out as potential saints. We give up our birthright (new birth) in this way.

So what were Joseph, Isaiah, Daniel, and Nehemiah thinking?

ImmenseDisciple
Feb 24th 2011, 11:58 PM
If a man works at the lower level he will NOT influence the higher one.

If a man works on the higher level both will be influenced.

OK, maybe I'm just too tired to understand your position (it's gone midnight here) but every time I try and think through the attitudes you're espousing, I come to really odd conclusions. Like - I'm walking down the street, and someone's starving. Across the road, there's a bakery which has been instructed they must destroy all their leftover bread at the end of the day. There is a local candidate who objects, and will reverse the decision at a local level. I have the power to vote for him and change the situation, but instead refuse to act until I can change the situation at a national level, because that's obviously much better. Why? Why would I do that? The "higher" good does indeed include within it the same benefit I would hope from the "lower" one, but why would I neglect to do the good which is immediately an option in favour of hoping to do something grander and more over-arching?

In short: why would you impose any limitations and restrictions whatsoever on the ways in which you are willing to have an objectively, biblically-sound positive impact, purely on the grounds of it being a less significant change than is conceivably possible - even if it were making only a tiny bit of the world a tiny bit better? Even if bringing a single smile to a single life?

ProjectPeter
Feb 25th 2011, 01:09 AM
It's simple. Next election, everyone that doesn't vote for me is not saved! Republican... Democrat... all of them stink! I will put a stop to all that by becoming the Great and Powerful Oz! :lol:

Vhayes
Feb 25th 2011, 01:48 AM
Uh oh. I voted for the good RabbiKnife last election. Will I have to put a different name on the ballot this coming election?

And Amos - yes - I do know what you're talking about. When we listen to others, we at least have an informed decision.
V

Amos_with_goats
Feb 25th 2011, 05:34 AM
...And Amos - yes - I do know what you're talking about. When we listen to others, we at least have an informed decision.
V

It is good to know that at least one person read it, thank's V. :hug:

It is appropriate you replied, I have learned much about Believers who
are members of the 'Pinko, commie, liberal, barefoot-hippy party' from
our conversations... :lol:

tango
Feb 25th 2011, 07:29 AM
OK, maybe I'm just too tired to understand your position (it's gone midnight here) but every time I try and think through the attitudes you're espousing, I come to really odd conclusions. Like - I'm walking down the street, and someone's starving. Across the road, there's a bakery which has been instructed they must destroy all their leftover bread at the end of the day. There is a local candidate who objects, and will reverse the decision at a local level. I have the power to vote for him and change the situation, but instead refuse to act until I can change the situation at a national level, because that's obviously much better. Why? Why would I do that? The "higher" good does indeed include within it the same benefit I would hope from the "lower" one, but why would I neglect to do the good which is immediately an option in favour of hoping to do something grander and more over-arching?

In short: why would you impose any limitations and restrictions whatsoever on the ways in which you are willing to have an objectively, biblically-sound positive impact, purely on the grounds of it being a less significant change than is conceivably possible - even if it were making only a tiny bit of the world a tiny bit better? Even if bringing a single smile to a single life?

I agree with this - we can cast our vote to seek change at the national level while at the same time our own actions effect change at whatever level we operate. So someone like David Cameron, Barack Obama etc may effect change at high levels simply through their own personal actions, while the rest of us might be limited to making a difference to one or two people at a time.

In the example of the bakery here it's often a policy decision that the bakery itself makes and no political candidate is empowered to overrule their policies. But there's nothing to stop an individual buying some bread, possibly at a heavy discount, shortly before the bakery closes and then handing it out to those who would otherwise be hungry. It's very easy to expect Someone Else to solve a problem when we've got a perfect solution in our own hands.

ProDeo
Feb 25th 2011, 10:04 AM
If there is blood on anyone's hands, the blood is on the hands of the nation corporately.

You got that from Scripture. Good....

ProDeo
Feb 25th 2011, 11:11 AM
How do we fight crime? By being a spiritual force in the world that displaces the influence of crime. That is the way of Christ.

No police?


I realize that I am probably making no sense to most here.....but there it is!

Your view is OK as long as you accept the consequences of your choice.

Here is the dilemma:

For Europe that would mean the people AD 2011 would speak either German or Russian, for USA that Bin Laden can freely bomb New York on a weekly base, that where you live your family can be robbed and the women can be raped because if everybody who holds your view would refuse to be a cop.

Are you OK with all of that?

If you on the other hand want your government to protect you with an army and police force after all while holding the pacifist view not willing to make dirty hands yourself but demand it from others nevertheless it would make you a hypocrite.

What I am saying is, it's all not so simple.

ProDeo
Feb 25th 2011, 11:22 AM
For all your balanced considerations in this thread, Rookie for President!

Firefighter
Feb 25th 2011, 12:44 PM
It is appropriate you replied, I have learned much about Believers who
are members of the 'Pinko, commie, liberal, barefoot-hippy party' from
our conversations... :lol:

You forgot "Muslim Sympathizing"... :lol:

Servant89
Feb 25th 2011, 01:20 PM
And he spoke this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:
Two men went up into the temple to pray; one was a liberal and the other one a conservative Christian.
And the conservative Christian stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not a liberal.
I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.
And the liberal, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.
I tell you, the liberal went down to his house justified rather than the conservative: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

Those are my words, I took the liberty of modifying Luke 18:9-14.

Shalom (from a hardcore Republican)

episkopos
Feb 25th 2011, 03:34 PM
OK, maybe I'm just too tired to understand your position (it's gone midnight here) but every time I try and think through the attitudes you're espousing, I come to really odd conclusions. Like - I'm walking down the street, and someone's starving. Across the road, there's a bakery which has been instructed they must destroy all their leftover bread at the end of the day. There is a local candidate who objects, and will reverse the decision at a local level. I have the power to vote for him and change the situation, but instead refuse to act until I can change the situation at a national level, because that's obviously much better. Why? Why would I do that? The "higher" good does indeed include within it the same benefit I would hope from the "lower" one, but why would I neglect to do the good which is immediately an option in favour of hoping to do something grander and more over-arching?

In short: why would you impose any limitations and restrictions whatsoever on the ways in which you are willing to have an objectively, biblically-sound positive impact, purely on the grounds of it being a less significant change than is conceivably possible - even if it were making only a tiny bit of the world a tiny bit better? Even if bringing a single smile to a single life?

All this can be done without recourse to political action! :)

episkopos
Feb 25th 2011, 03:35 PM
So what were Joseph, Isaiah, Daniel, and Nehemiah thinking?

I'll bite! What were they thinking?:hmm:

the rookie
Feb 25th 2011, 03:44 PM
I'll bite! What were they thinking?:hmm:

I was asking you, in light of the manner in which they engaged the governments of this world - seemingly in a manner you say contradicts scripture?

the rookie
Feb 25th 2011, 03:45 PM
All this can be done without recourse to political action! :)

But why ?

episkopos
Feb 25th 2011, 04:00 PM
I was asking you, in light of the manner in which they engaged the governments of this world - seemingly in a manner you say contradicts scripture?

Before Christ came, things were done differently. Elijah called down fire from heaven. Enemies were to be destroyed. We remain unconverted , however, if we don't see how different the Spirit is working in Christ to bring about His reign on earth. It is a new wine meant to be held in the new wineskins of a new heart. A heart that is willing to die but NOT to kill for the truth.

Notice Jesus' strong rebuke. Ignore this at your own peril.

But when John called on Jesus to rain down fire from heaven on a village they were refused entry into....

Luke 9:51-56, And it came to pass, when the time was come that he should be received up, he stedfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem, and sent messengers before his face: and they went, and entered into a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him. And they did not receive him, because his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem. And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did? But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.

episkopos
Feb 25th 2011, 04:07 PM
I agree that a great deal, truly the vast majority of what Christians can achieve is best done entirely aside from politics and even potentially harmed by politicisation!

However, the crux of my question was this - if political action (even if only as far as simply voting) can do any good at all, and a failure to act can do harm, why would we let the opportunity to do some good pass us by? Or would you disagree that voting has the potential to do any good whatsoever, and abstaining cannot potentially do any harm...?




If you wish involvement in worldly affairs that is your own decision. We are councilled against such in the NT.

Neanias
Feb 25th 2011, 04:08 PM
Before Christ came, things were done differently. Elijah called down fire from heaven. Enemies were to be destroyed. We remain unconverted , however, if we don't see how different the Spirit is working in Christ to bring about His reign on earth. It is a new wine meant to be held in the new wineskins of a new heart. A heart that is willing to die but NOT to kill for the truth.

Notice Jesus' strong rebuke. Ignore this at your own peril.

But when John called on Jesus to rain down fire from heaven on a village they were refused entry into....

Luke 9:51-56, And it came to pass, when the time was come that he should be received up, he stedfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem, and sent messengers before his face: and they went, and entered into a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him. And they did not receive him, because his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem. And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did? But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.



Amen!

Christ did not come conquering in the power of the flesh... Rather he was conquered... Crucified... And in this way overcame death!

Whoever lives by the sword will die by the sword,
Whoever lives by the power of the flesh will die by it.

Eph 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

ImmenseDisciple
Feb 25th 2011, 04:09 PM
All this can be done without recourse to political action! :)
Can you change the legal frameworks which determine how societies run without political action?

Athanasius
Feb 25th 2011, 04:11 PM
Whoever lives by the sword will die by the sword,
Whoever lives by the power of the flesh will die by it.


There are many who live by the sword and don't die by it, just as there are many who don't live by the sword and die by it. What are you trying to get at with this so oft-repeated metaphor that it's become not only misapplied by meaningless?

episkopos
Feb 25th 2011, 04:14 PM
Can you change the legal frameworks which determine how societies run without political action?

The legal frameworks are given this authority from above. That is where change takes place from.

Vhayes
Feb 25th 2011, 04:19 PM
Didn't Paul use his Roman citizenship as a way of challenging his arrest and imprisonment?

That would seem to indicate we are to use the means we have at hand.

ImmenseDisciple
Feb 25th 2011, 04:19 PM
However, the crux of my question was this - if political action (even if only as far as simply voting) can do any good at all, and a failure to act can do harm, why would we let the opportunity to do some good pass us by? Or would you disagree that voting has the potential to do any good whatsoever, and abstaining cannot potentially do any harm...?

If you wish involvement in worldly affairs that is your own decision. We are councilled against such in the NT.
It's clear to me that you've very earnestly taken the stance you hold from scripture, brother. I cannot help but feel you are misguided in how you interpret "worldly affairs" in terms of determining what limits a Christian must impose on their behaviour.

If the road next to your local school held no speed limit, and as a result hundreds of children were being killed each year, would you feel it an inappropriate involvement in worldly affairs to vote for the single candidate proposing speed limits? If there were no restrictions on advertising, and any charlatan could make any claim he could invent to con people into buying his product - is it getting your hands dirty with the business of worldly affairs to demonstrate, or to write to your representatives?


Another time Jesus went into the synagogue, and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Some of them were looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, so they watched him closely to see if he would heal him on the Sabbath. Jesus said to the man with the shriveled hand, “Stand up in front of everyone.” Then Jesus asked them, “Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?” But they remained silent. He looked around at them in anger and, deeply distressed at their stubborn hearts, said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out, and his hand was completely restored. Then the Pharisees went out and began to plot with the Herodians how they might kill Jesus.
I'd like you to read through that, and try and see the parallel with what you're espousing.

Neanias
Feb 25th 2011, 04:20 PM
There are many who live by the sword and don't die by it, just as there are many who don't live by the sword and die by it. What are you trying to get at with this so oft-repeated metaphor that it's become not only misapplied by meaningless?

If Jesus had said it, would it still be a meaningless metaphor?

Mat 26:52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

ImmenseDisciple
Feb 25th 2011, 04:21 PM
If Jesus had said it, would it still be a meaningless metaphor?

Mat 26:52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.
When Christ said it, it wasn't an oft-repeated metaphor, either.

Vhayes
Feb 25th 2011, 04:22 PM
If Jesus had said it, would it still be a meaningless metaphor?

Mat 26:52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

I think this is an instance of Jesus saying the Good News of the gospel should never be taught/adhered to by force. We all know how well the Crusades and the Inquisition went, right?

episkopos
Feb 25th 2011, 04:26 PM
Immense Disciple wrote...




It's clear to me that you've very earnestly taken the stance you hold from scripture, brother. I cannot help but feel you are misguided in how you interpret "worldly affairs" in terms of determining what limits a Christian must impose on their behaviour.

If the road next to your local school held no speed limit, and as a result hundreds of children were being killed each year, would you feel it an inappropriate involvement in worldly affairs to vote for the single candidate proposing speed limits? If there were no restrictions on advertising, and any charlatan could make any claim he could invent to con people into buying his product - is it getting your hands dirty with the business of worldly affairs to demonstrate, or to write to your representatives?


I would not vote for a candidate period. But the individual issue can be resolved as such. I know, this because I have done it and it works..

Go to the city hall and ask for a form that puts your complaint (as a suggestion) before the commitee that deals with such complaints.

Now go home and pray.


Watch what God does when you trust HIM.

Praise His Name and declare His marvelous works at the fellowship, at work , with friends etc.....

keck553
Feb 25th 2011, 04:27 PM
I think this is an instance of Jesus saying the Good News of the gospel should never be taught/adhered to by force. We all know how well the Crusades and the Inquisition went, right?

True. However persecution has the same face, whether it be in the 1st Century (such as in ACTS) or the 21st Century. The world's morality will certainly be increasingly forced upon us, and we will have to make a decision whether to compromise or pay a price for standing in the truth. The time will come when what the Bible defines as sinful will be considered not sinful by the world and our stand will be attacked. Already a rather large Catholic adoption agency has been forced out of business for their policies regarding adoption by same-sex couples. They were forced out of business for proclaiming homosexual acts as sin. Eventually we will all have to pay a cost for proclaiming the truth about Jesus being the only Name given by God for salvation, and for adhering to morality as defined by God's Word in our lives.

Being a Christian is not all cotton candy, not if we adhere to the true image of Christ.

Athanasius
Feb 25th 2011, 04:27 PM
If Jesus had said it, would it still be a meaningless metaphor?

Mat 26:52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

Your interpretation is made invalid by experience. Many Christian martyrs died 'by the sword,' and yet they never lived 'by the sword' (it is also true that not all those who 'live by the sword' die by it). I'm well aware of where the phrase comes from and who said it. Either Jesus was wrong, and experience shows him to be wrong, or you and others are wrong.

Neanias
Feb 25th 2011, 04:29 PM
The legal frameworks are given this authority from above. That is where change takes place from.

Amen! There's a man who once said that a man could have no power against him unless it was given to him from above...

Oh wait, that was Jesus.
Joh 19:11 Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above:

When will we understand that we are not wrestling with the flesh, but with spiritual principalities?

episkopos
Feb 25th 2011, 04:31 PM
Your interpretation is made invalid by experience. Many Christians martyrs died 'by the sword,' and yet they never lived 'by the sword' (it is also true that not all those who 'live by the sword' die by it). I'm well aware of where the phrase comes from and who said it. Either Jesus was wrong, and experience shows him to be wrong, or you and others are wrong.

Your experience outways the words of Christ? And you are being smug about this?

Should Jesus retract His mis-statement as you see it, or should you look more carefully at what is being said here?

Arrogance is a poor imitation of humility.

keck553
Feb 25th 2011, 04:35 PM
Your experience outways the words of Christ? And you are being smug about this?

Should Jesus retract His mis-statement as you see it, or should you look more carefully at what is being said here?Arrogance is a poor imitation of humility.

Now here is a novel idea that would benefit all of us. It's refreshing to be disillusioned.

ImmenseDisciple
Feb 25th 2011, 04:37 PM
I would not vote for a candidate period. But the individual issue can be resolved as such. I know, this because I have done it and it works..

Go to the city hall and ask for a form that puts your complaint before the commitee that deals with such complaints.

Now go home and pray.


Watch what God does when you trust HIM.

Praise His Name and declare His marvelous works at the fellowship, at work , with friends etc.....
Sorry, are you saying you should go to city hall and make a complaint about the laws, or lack thereof? That we should take only such direct action as complaining about them, but not help in shaping them in the first place? It's an oddly specific (and entirely arbitrary) definition of "involvement with worldly affairs" which would impose such constricting limitations on Christ's followers.

It almost sounds as if you propose we exclusively pray about problems in the world. That our hands are to be used only for lifting problems to God, and not to serve as the means of His solution. I strongly urge you to come to God in prayer with an open mind and a softened heart over this issue, and ask Him whether this is really our role in this world.

It feels like we're not going to be making any progress with this, so I expect I'll retire from the conversation, to prayer of the same attitude to that which I suggested you apply.

...and I'm back in. Briefly :D

Here's a story - my sister's boy broke her arm, and on the way to the hospital, she stopped at a prayer meeting, where they prayed over him. Many non-believers would suggest it deeply irresponsible not to get him to the doctors as soon as possible. The attitude to life you're insisting we adopt would say, rather, that it was deeply inappropriate for her to continue to the hospital.

May you comprehend His love a little more profoundly each day

Athanasius
Feb 25th 2011, 04:37 PM
Your experience outways the words of Christ? And you are being smug about this?

Should Jesus retract His mis-statement as you see it, or should you look more carefully at what is being said here?

Arrogance is a poor imitation of humility.

What I am saying is that you're either (1) misunderstanding or (2) misapplying the verse in question (or both). Jesus wouldn't have uttered a phrase contrary to experience, and the way you are interpreting Jesus is contrary to experience (nowhere did I claim 'my' experience).

Check your attitude before you get ahead of yourself.

episkopos
Feb 25th 2011, 04:41 PM
Sorry, are you saying you should go to city hall and make a complaint about the laws, or lack thereof? That we should take only such direct action as complaining about them, but not help in shaping them in the first place? It's an oddly specific (and entirely arbitrary) definition of "involvement with worldly affairs" which would impose such constricting limitations on Christ's followers.

It almost sounds as if you propose we exclusively pray about problems in the world. That our hands are to be used only for lifting problems to God, and not to serve as the means of His solution. I strongly urge you to come to God in prayer with an open mind and a softened heart over this issue, and ask Him whether this is really our role in this world.

It feels like we're not going to be making any progress with this, so I expect I'll retire from the conversation to prayer, similarly.

May you comprehend His love a little more profoundly each day

As we walk in His love, His life is made manifest through our words and actions. Those things that are out of our control we look to the Father for.

Sounds crazy, but it works. Would that Christianity be actually attempted before one cynically turns to the ways of the world.

episkopos
Feb 25th 2011, 04:44 PM
What I am saying is that you're either (1) misunderstanding or (2) misapplying the verse in question (or both). Jesus wouldn't have uttered a phrase contrary to experience, and the way you are interpreting Jesus is contrary to experience (nowhere did I claim 'my' experience).

Check your attitude before you get ahead of yourself.

My attitude? This is a Christian forum where people look to Jesus not to experience. I am amazed that you don't realize you've been corrected. As such can anyone possibly ever teach you? Do the words "teach you" make you cringe?

Athanasius
Feb 25th 2011, 04:51 PM
My attitude? This is a Christian forum where people look to Jesus not to experience.

Your attitude, yes. I get the feeling I've - for some reason - gotten under your skin. My disagreement with you has caused you to be taken aback. Hence the admonition not to get ahead of yourself.

As for looking to Jesus or experience, you're missing the point. I'm not saying experience is the guide by which we judge Jesus, or that Jesus was wrong in what he said. I'm saying you're wrong to apply the verse towards a stance of non-violence.


I am amazed that you don't realize you've been corrected.

Because you haven't corrected me. There is more than one way to approach what I said; instead you took offense (don't tell me you didn't, because your writing says so very clearly).


As such can anyone possibly ever teach you? Do the words "teach you" make you cringe?

Hello, pride.

ImmenseDisciple
Feb 25th 2011, 04:54 PM
As we walk in His love, His life is made manifest through our words and actions. Those things that are out of our control we look to the Father for.

Sounds crazy, but it works. Would that Christianity be actually attempted before one cynically turns to the ways of the world.
If we refuse to actually put forward the Christian voice when laws are being determined, then we are making self-imposed restrictions to the things which we may influence and have some control over.

It is unclear to whom, if anyone explicitly, your comment about cynically turning away from Christianity to the ways of the world is directed. Frankly, it's quite an appalling assumption to make about any who call themself Christian, and comes across as somewhat self-righteous. It may not have been remotely directed at me, but I'm certainly hurt by it, as I was still involved in this discussion out of love, and a hope that we could grow together.

This time I really am done with this discussion, honest :)

episkopos
Feb 25th 2011, 05:05 PM
Sorry, are you saying you should go to city hall and make a complaint about the laws, or lack thereof? That we should take only such direct action as complaining about them, but not help in shaping them in the first place? It's an oddly specific (and entirely arbitrary) definition of "involvement with worldly affairs" which would impose such constricting limitations on Christ's followers.

It almost sounds as if you propose we exclusively pray about problems in the world. That our hands are to be used only for lifting problems to God, and not to serve as the means of His solution. I strongly urge you to come to God in prayer with an open mind and a softened heart over this issue, and ask Him whether this is really our role in this world.

It feels like we're not going to be making any progress with this, so I expect I'll retire from the conversation, to prayer of the same attitude to that which I suggested you apply.

...and I'm back in. Briefly :D

Here's a story - my sister's boy broke her arm, and on the way to the hospital, she stopped at a prayer meeting, where they prayed over him. Many non-believers would suggest it deeply irresponsible not to get him to the doctors as soon as possible. The attitude to life you're insisting we adopt would say, rather, that it was deeply inappropriate for her to continue to the hospital.

May you comprehend His love a little more profoundly each day

I'm personally not against doctors. This thread is about political action where we choose one political man over another one. Our Christian duty lies elsewhere on this issue.

I think you are reading more into what I'm saying then what I'm actually saying.

Going to the doctor does not constitute any political action. I will go to the doctor if need arises. Of course, we should pray. I know others who do pray and have no need for a doctor.

The purpose is for God to receive glory and for His kingdom to advance. We don't elect doctors...we go to one we find competent.

Likewise I buy groceries at the store. No manna available at this time! :)

episkopos
Feb 25th 2011, 05:11 PM
If we refuse to actually put forward the Christian voice when laws are being determined, then we are making self-imposed restrictions to the things which we may influence and have some control over.

It is unclear to whom, if anyone explicitly, your comment about cynically turning away from Christianity to the ways of the world is directed. Frankly, it's quite an appalling assumption to make about any who call themself Christian, and comes across as somewhat self-righteous. It may not have been remotely directed at me, but I'm certainly hurt by it, as I was still involved in this discussion out of love, and a hope that we could grow together.

This time I really am done with this discussion, honest :)

I'm sorry, I meant you no offense!

I find that people no longer think faith is a worthwhile means of operating in the world. Many have become cynical. Men have become worldly in their thinking and actions. These men also read the bible.

I have tried to explain the Christian duty in the arena of change in the world. That change begins in our hearts. We must look to God in faith. Anybody can cast a vote and think they have done their civic duty.

Jesus never said we would be a majority. Our way of victory is not through voting nor political actions.

For whatever is born of God overcomes the world; and this is the victory that has overcome the world-- our faith.

That's not a sunday slogan! That IS the truth.

episkopos
Feb 25th 2011, 05:40 PM
Your attitude, yes. I get the feeling I've - for some reason - gotten under your skin. My disagreement with you has caused you to be taken aback. Hence the admonition not to get ahead of yourself.

As for looking to Jesus or experience, you're missing the point. I'm not saying experience is the guide by which we judge Jesus, or that Jesus was wrong in what he said. I'm saying you're wrong to apply the verse towards a stance of non-violence.



Because you haven't corrected me. There is more than one way to approach what I said; instead you took offense (don't tell me you didn't, because your writing says so very clearly).



Hello, pride.

I am fully used to dealing with believers who criticize Jesus' words if they are not given the verse chapter and number. I have also dealings with those who rebuff His words even when it is proved to be biblical.

I will not sit idly by and watch as Jesus' words are temporized. I am a disciple of Christ. And I will defend my Master's words.

We are living in a time of apostasy and defeat. Men have no shame. I would hope that a Christian would tremble at His words...but that is NOT the case here.

All these things my hand has made, and so all these things came to be, declares the LORD. But this is the one to whom I will look: he who is humble and contrite in spirit and trembles at my word. Is. 66:2

the rookie
Feb 25th 2011, 05:48 PM
I think that pitting "faith" against "political involvement" and cultural engagement is a poor argument. One can have robust faith and engage the culture - politically or otherwise.

The very nature of your argument is off-putting, because you imagine a moral weight (the superiority of the life of faith) that is inarguable and above correction, while asking others to be open to your correctives. The "superiority of a life of faith" does not conflict with a life of cultural engagement. You've created a false paradigm of "upper level engagement" and pitted it against your construct that you call "lower level engagement" and quote Paul to back up your false construct. The burden of proof is on you to prove that Paul meant "no cultural / political engagement" when you appeal to 2 Tim. 2; yet all you've done is quote it and assume Paul meant this. Contextually and logically, your argument is weak and your style of communication needs to dial down.

Athanasius
Feb 25th 2011, 05:49 PM
I am fully used to dealing with believers who criticize Jesus' words if they are not given the verse chapter and number. I have also dealings with those who rebuff His words even when it is proved to be biblical.

I will not sit idly by and watch as Jesus' words are temporized. I am a disciple of Christ. And I will defend my Master's words.

We are living in a time of apostasy and defeat. Men have no shame. I would hope that a Christian would tremble at His words...but that is NOT the case here.

All these things my hand has made, and so all these things came to be, declares the LORD. But this is the one to whom I will look: he who is humble and contrite in spirit and trembles at my word. Is. 66:2

I hate to be repetitive, but I'm not criticizing Jesus' words: I'm criticizing your interpretation of Him. Let me ask you a question, how did David - who was too much of a warrior to build the temple - die?

the rookie
Feb 25th 2011, 05:55 PM
Before Christ came, things were done differently.

The Old Testament is therefore irrelevant? Christ negated the Old Testament and redefined what the life of faith was to look like?


Elijah called down fire from heaven. Enemies were to be destroyed.

Ananias and Sapphira, Jezebel in Rev. 3, Jerusalem in 70 AD, Rev. 11, Rev. 19, the judgments of God...

Things don't seem that different in the New Testament.


We remain unconverted , however, if we don't see how different the Spirit is working in Christ to bring about His reign on earth. It is a new wine meant to be held in the new wineskins of a new heart.

The "new wineskins" passage relates to a new wineskin of fasting, in context. If one wants to take the principle and apply it in a broader manner, than one must honor the framework of the conversation - and apply it to a new wineskin of loving the Messiah.


A heart that is willing to die but NOT to kill for the truth.

Notice Jesus' strong rebuke. Ignore this at your own peril.

But when John called on Jesus to rain down fire from heaven on a village they were refused entry into....

Luke 9:51-56, And it came to pass, when the time was come that he should be received up, he stedfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem, and sent messengers before his face: and they went, and entered into a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him. And they did not receive him, because his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem. And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did? But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.



What in the world are you talking about here? I'll give you a shot to explain this before this conversation shifts dramatically, because your rhetoric is quite over the top, for reasons that are very unclear.

episkopos
Feb 25th 2011, 06:07 PM
I hate to be repetitive, but I'm not criticizing Jesus' words: I'm criticizing your interpretation of Him. Let me ask you a question, how did David - who was too much of a warrior to build the temple - die?

How would you interpret then..."those who live by the sword will perish by the sword." This was said in conjunction with Peter's defense of Jesus using brute force.

David slew his ten thousands, yes. Elijah killed many men as well and this with fire from heaven, yes. Samuel cut the head off Agag. None of these perished by the sword.

Does this mean that Jesus was painting with too broad a stroke? Or is it merely okay to not criticize Jesus (because He is the saviour) but it's ok to criticize anyone who would dare quote Him?

But Jesus came to show a higher way (I realize that this way of speaking is unpopular here). That is why he rebuked the disciples when they tried using the old way of thinking and acting IN HIS PRESENCE.

I have another question for you.

When Jesus says let the dead bury their dead...does that mean we should leave corpses lying around to rot under the sun???

episkopos
Feb 25th 2011, 06:17 PM
I will try one last time to explain my position.

The OT was about God's way in an outward demonstration of acts and consequences.


For example an adulterer was put to death because the price of sin was death.

The NT is about an inward and spiritual renewal of the heart. We no longer kill people for sinning, for example.


Jesus spoke of spiritual things. I'm trying simply to bring attention to this fact.


Now most people disagree with me relating political actions with an OT model....that of an outward justice.

But Jesus is misunderstood here in my estimation.

When Jesus says that those who wield the sword will die by the sword he is NOT talking about physical things any more than letting the dead bury the dead means that corpses are to bury corpses.

We are talking of God's judgment here. These are spiritual in nature. They are eternal.

So here goes.

If we use the means of the world we will be judged with the world.

Let the spiritually dead worry over their dead.

The sword of the Lord shall cut asunder any man who raises his sword against his brother.


But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.

Athanasius
Feb 25th 2011, 06:20 PM
How would you interpret then..."those who live by the sword will perish by the sword." This was said in conjunction with Peter's defense of Jesus using brute force.

Within context Jesus appears to be speaking towards revenge, or acting outside of the will of God. Otherwise...


David slew his ten thousands, yes. Elijah killed many men as well and this with fire from heaven, yes. Samuel cut the head off Agag. None of these perished by the sword.

...It can very easily be shown from scripture that Jesus spoke 'too quickly' and was wrong. As neither you or I are willing to admit that, our understanding of Jesus must (necessarily) be at fault.


Does this mean that Jesus was painting with too broad a stroke? Or is it merely okay to not criticize Jesus (because He is the saviour) but it's ok to criticize anyone who would dare quote Him?

Cut the rhetoric, you're no Cicero.


But Jesus came to show a higher way (I realize that this way of speaking is unpopular here). That is why he rebuked the disciples when they tried using the old way of thinking and acting IN HIS PRESENCE.

Because they were 'using the sword', or because the act was outside of the will of God?


I have another question for you.

When Jesus says let the dead bury their dead...does that mean we should leave corpses lying around to rot under the sun???

You're making my point ;)

Neanias
Feb 25th 2011, 06:28 PM
I agree, brother episkopos.

There is a deeper meaning to all these things... And only by the spirit can they be discerned.

Joh 2:19 Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."

You people have the same reaction as the Jews did when they heard this; "It's impossible!" And that is because you don't see the spiritual meaning.

Joh 2:21 But he was speaking about the temple of his body.

Neanias
Feb 25th 2011, 06:32 PM
Within context Jesus appears to be speaking towards revenge, or acting outside of the will of God. Otherwise...



...It can very easily be shown from scripture that Jesus spoke 'too quickly' and was wrong. As neither you or I are willing to admit that, our understanding of Jesus must (necessarily) be at fault.



Cut the rhetoric, you're no Cicero.



Because they were 'using the sword', or because the act was outside of the will of God?



You're making my point ;)

No one said that it meant literally. We said it wasn't an outdated metaphor as you think it is. I used that scripture and I tell you that it wasn't used in the literal sense. It was meant in the same sense as episkopos explains it...

Use the ways of the world and you will be judged with the world.

That is what we have been saying all along, but you don't want to see it.

tango
Feb 25th 2011, 06:37 PM
Your interpretation is made invalid by experience. Many Christian martyrs died 'by the sword,' and yet they never lived 'by the sword' (it is also true that not all those who 'live by the sword' die by it). I'm well aware of where the phrase comes from and who said it. Either Jesus was wrong, and experience shows him to be wrong, or you and others are wrong.

With respect, I'd be very careful with the phrase "experience shows [Jesus] to be wrong". As soon as we start to regard Jesus as being wrong it opens up all sorts of cans of worms relating to what else he might have been wrong about.

"He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword" doesn't preclude anyone else from dying by the sword - from "A implies B" you can't deduce "not-A implies not-B". You can deduce "not-B implies not-A" but even then it starts to fall down as soon as the phrase is regarded as being metaphorical - if "the sword" refers to a long sharp metal weapon then experience does cast doubt on the words of Jesus. If "the sword" is regarded as referring to earthly ways of doing things than it fits in nicely with "my kingdom is not of this world" and also shows that, in keeping with the rest of John 18:36, that those who would fight (perhaps measure success?) by earthly means will perish (perhaps be judged?) by earthly means.

Athanasius
Feb 25th 2011, 06:44 PM
With respect, I'd be very careful with the phrase "experience shows [Jesus] to be wrong". As soon as we start to regard Jesus as being wrong it opens up all sorts of cans of worms relating to what else he might have been wrong about.

That's my point.


"He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword" doesn't preclude anyone else from dying by the sword - from "A implies B" you can't deduce "not-A implies not-B". You can deduce "not-B implies not-A" but even then it starts to fall down as soon as the phrase is regarded as being metaphorical - if "the sword" refers to a long sharp metal weapon then experience does cast doubt on the words of Jesus. If "the sword" is regarded as referring to earthly ways of doing things than it fits in nicely with "my kingdom is not of this world" and also shows that, in keeping with the rest of John 18:36, that those who would fight (perhaps measure success?) by earthly means will perish (perhaps be judged?) by earthly means.

A much better response than what was previously submitted... And in agreement to what I had posted (briefly) above. The question is whether or not this can be applied to (Christian) involvement in politics. I say nay, involvement in politics is not necessarily 'doing things the worlds way'.

Neanias
Feb 25th 2011, 06:45 PM
Is politics a weapon of this world or a heavenly one?

You cannot trust in politics to accomplish good on this earth. Otherwise, your faith is not your victory.

And good post Tango. :) Wise words.

Athanasius
Feb 25th 2011, 06:46 PM
Is politics a weapon of this world or a heavenly one?

Joseph was a politician, you tell me.

Vhayes
Feb 25th 2011, 06:47 PM
It should not BE a weapon, it should rather be a tool.

Neanias
Feb 25th 2011, 06:54 PM
Joseph was a politician, you tell me.

Old Testament, when people were calling down fire...

A tool? So we can't use a weapon of this world, but a tool of this world? Are not our ways to be spiritual?

Let the dead bury the dead... And the political tool is dead, spiritualy dead. We're using a dead tool if we use politics. The Old Testament was according to the law, which is dead, and so the tool of politics was used, but it is an image. The OT is a shadow of the things to come.

Jacob had many wives, do you back that up too?

the rookie
Feb 25th 2011, 06:57 PM
Is politics a weapon of this world or a heavenly one?

You cannot trust in politics to accomplish good on this earth. Otherwise, your faith is not your victory.

One of the premier theocracies in history, established by Moses, was fairly political. The book of Revelation is a profoundly political book. Christianity is best understood as a political movement, not a religion.

Neanias
Feb 25th 2011, 06:59 PM
Christianity has it's own kingdom, and there is no dual membership allowed ;)

Before the kingdom of God was present through Israel as an image (as you say of Moses). Now the kingdom is at hand, and we are called to be part of a new government. If you live by the old one, you miss the new one which is already here in the spiritual reality.

Neanias
Feb 25th 2011, 07:01 PM
And as for Revelation, does it not speak of spiritual things, and are the saints not killed and overcome because they show to be part of another kingdom? They do.

tango
Feb 25th 2011, 07:04 PM
That's my point.

OK, I guess I missed your point... I thought you were trying to say that Jesus got it wrong.


A much better response than what was previously submitted... And in agreement to what I had posted (briefly) above. The question is whether or not this can be applied to (Christian) involvement in politics. I say nay, involvement in politics is not necessarily 'doing things the worlds way'.

I think we can do things by whatever means is necessary. If we renounce the ways of the world entirely we do nobody any favours - James was pretty clear about the uselessness of seeing someone naked and hungry and giving them comforting words to "go, be well, be fed" and the relative merit of actually giving them some food. We might pray "give us this day our daily bread" but that doesn't preclude us being the means that someone else gets their daily bread - perhaps our act of (arguably earthly) giving might be the answer to someone else's prayer.

Athanasius
Feb 25th 2011, 07:10 PM
OK, I guess I missed your point... I thought you were trying to say that Jesus got it wrong.

No no :) I'm blame myself for perhaps being unclear (I thought I had implied what you said fairly strongly, I guess not).


I think we can do things by whatever means is necessary. If we renounce the ways of the world entirely we do nobody any favours - James was pretty clear about the uselessness of seeing someone naked and hungry and giving them comforting words to "go, be well, be fed" and the relative merit of actually giving them some food. We might pray "give us this day our daily bread" but that doesn't preclude us being the means that someone else gets their daily bread - perhaps our act of (arguably earthly) giving might be the answer to someone else's prayer.

Well said.

Athanasius
Feb 25th 2011, 07:12 PM
Old Testament, when people were calling down fire...

A tool? So we can't use a weapon of this world, but a tool of this world? Are not our ways to be spiritual?

Let the dead bury the dead... And the political tool is dead, spiritualy dead. We're using a dead tool if we use politics. The Old Testament was according to the law, which is dead, and so the tool of politics was used, but it is an image. The OT is a shadow of the things to come.

Jacob had many wives, do you back that up too?

Joseph possessed a political position in Egypt to ensure the land would survive a 7 year famine. God placed him there. What this has to do with Jacob is beyond me - what does him having many wives have to do with God establishing Joseph in a political position?

Vhayes
Feb 25th 2011, 07:22 PM
Neanias, we are first and foremost Christians. We are told by Paul that we should not seek to change our position in life - if a slave, remain a slave unless your master frees you, etc.

My thoughts on the whole thing is this - if you are a Christian, you should do the work set before you as unto the Lord because He is your ultimate Master.

I have been given the privilege of having been born in the United States. It is part of this country's heritage to elect our officials to legislate the laws by which we are governed. If I want to see laws that reflect my ambassadorship as a Christian, I need to vote. If things turn out poorly for "my" cause (whatever it happens to be) I need to accept that and move on.

I'm not sure if that makes any sense or not but I tried :-)
V

episkopos
Feb 25th 2011, 07:23 PM
Athenasius ..It can very easily be shown from scripture that Jesus spoke 'too quickly' and was wrong. As neither you or I are willing to admit that, our understanding of Jesus must (necessarily) be at fault.


WOW.........This is what I was speaking against. How many others agree with the above statement?

the rookie
Feb 25th 2011, 07:23 PM
Old Testament, when people were calling down fire...

A tool? So we can't use a weapon of this world, but a tool of this world? Are not our ways to be spiritual?

Let the dead bury the dead... And the political tool is dead, spiritualy dead. We're using a dead tool if we use politics. The Old Testament was according to the law, which is dead, and so the tool of politics was used, but it is an image. The OT is a shadow of the things to come.

Jacob had many wives, do you back that up too?

How are you related to Episkopos? I notice that you're both from Montreal, and you're both saying the same things - and you both have an interesting affinity for Neo-Platonic dualism that is borderline gnostic in nature...

Vhayes
Feb 25th 2011, 07:24 PM
WOW.........This is what I was speaking against. How many others agree with the above statement?

SLOW DOWN!

Look at the entire statement, please:
.It can very easily be shown from scripture that Jesus spoke 'too quickly' and was wrong. As neither you or I are willing to admit that, our understanding of Jesus must (necessarily) be at fault.

episkopos
Feb 25th 2011, 07:29 PM
SLOW DOWN!

Look at the entire statement, please:
.It can very easily be shown from scripture that Jesus spoke 'too quickly' and was wrong. As neither you or I are willing to admit that, our understanding of Jesus must (necessarily) be at fault.

(In Slow mode) I still don't see how one can say that Jesus spoke too quickly and was wrong. What am I missing here?

RabbiKnife
Feb 25th 2011, 07:30 PM
He is saying that if you look at Scripture without understanding, you can make an argument that Jesus spoke too quickly and was wrong. However, since we know that Jesus was not wrong, the only logical conclusion is that our understanding of Scripture would have to be wrong.

episkopos
Feb 25th 2011, 07:33 PM
He is saying that if you look at Scripture without understanding, you can make an argument that Jesus spoke too quickly and was wrong. However, since we know that Jesus was not wrong, the only logical conclusion is that our understanding of Scripture would have to be wrong.

But if someone tries to point that faulty understanding you criticize him. I'm trying to explain the faulty thinking behind this thread....and am making no headway against pre-conceived ideas.

Firefighter
Feb 25th 2011, 07:35 PM
How are you related to Episkopos? I notice that you're both from Montreal, and you're both saying the same things - and you both have an interesting affinity for Neo-Platonic dualism that is borderline gnostic in nature...

I would say that they are fairly close since they have the same IP address. ;)

Athanasius
Feb 25th 2011, 07:38 PM
(In Slow mode) I still don't see how one can say that Jesus spoke too quickly and was wrong. What am I missing here?

Please don't take offense, but... Est-ce que le français est ta lange maternelle?

episkopos
Feb 25th 2011, 07:39 PM
How are you related to Episkopos? I notice that you're both from Montreal, and you're both saying the same things - and you both have an interesting affinity for Neo-Platonic dualism that is borderline gnostic in nature...

Why do you equate a spiritual understanding with that?

Neanias is young friend of mine. A young man who is VERY mature for his age. He is growing in the Spirit by leaps and bounds.

The NT is meant to be spiritually discerned. It is not a list of pragmatic things to do. Rather, it flies in the face of pragmatism.

The Rookie, you seem to me to not apprehend spiritual things.

episkopos
Feb 25th 2011, 07:41 PM
Please don't take offense, but... Est-ce que le français est ta lange maternelle?

Non, c'est l'anglais mais je comprends ta question!

I realize that now that you are not saying Jesus was mistaken. You have a funny way of putting things as others came to the same conclusion. My simple? perhaps! :) But you are still failing to understand what Jesus said in regards to this thread.

I find that most here have difficulty with spiritual things. They look to the physical and temporal things which are readily understood by the natural man.
My argument was and is that being in Christ is a spiritual responsibility to act from the Spirit and NOT from a human reasoning.

Natural man: We must make a change in the policies of this government.

Spiritual man in Christ: Seek the Lord and pray for the government. The prayer of the righteous availeth more than political action.

Natural man: What? do nothing?

Vhayes
Feb 25th 2011, 07:43 PM
(In Slow mode) I still don't see how one can say that Jesus spoke too quickly and was wrong. What am I missing here?

Here it is again:

...It can very easily be shown from scripture that Jesus spoke 'too quickly' and was wrong. As neither you or I are willing to admit that, our understanding of Jesus must (necessarily) be at fault.

Said another way:
If we take scripture and mold it to our personal theology, we can and will say that Jesus "spoke too quickly". BUT - neither you not I THINK that so the only alternative to that is to reexamine our own understanding of what Jesus said and meant because our understanding is what is at fault.

Does THAT help?

Athanasius
Feb 25th 2011, 07:44 PM
Non, c'est l'anglais mais je comprends ta question!

Ah, okay! (Everyone I've met from Montreal - although it has a sizeable English population - has been French. I would have re-stated in French if it was necessary - but it's not, so we'll move on.)

the rookie
Feb 25th 2011, 07:46 PM
Why do you equate a spiritual understanding with that?

I don't. Neo-Platonic Dualism is something very different than spiritual understanding. The etherial nature of it makes it hard for folks to connect to. The appeal of gnosticism in the 2nd century was its seemingly superior understanding of spiritual matters for ones that gravitated towards it.


Neanias is young friend of mine. A young man who is VERY mature for his age. He is growing in the Spirit by leaps and bounds.

Is your young friend at your house, using your computer?


The NT is meant to be spiritually discerned. It is not a list of pragmatic things to do. Rather, it flies in the face of pragmatism.

And that is in response to, what, exactly?


The Rookie, you seem to me to not apprehend spiritual things.

I'm apprehending something here, it seems....

the rookie
Feb 25th 2011, 07:48 PM
Ah, okay! (Everyone I've met from Montreal - although it has a sizeable English population - has been French. I would have re-stated in French if it was necessary - but it's not, so we'll move on.)

I'm very familiar with both Montreal and French Canadians.

Athanasius
Feb 25th 2011, 07:49 PM
I'm very familiar with both Montreal and French Canadians.

I'm very familiar with French Canadians (married to one), but I've only ever 'been through' Montreal.

the rookie
Feb 25th 2011, 07:51 PM
I'm very familiar with French Canadians (married to one), but I've only ever 'been through' Montreal.

I think I did know that about you, actually (the "marriage" part of your comment) - anyways, carry on!

episkopos
Feb 25th 2011, 07:59 PM
Just FYI

Neanias has a laptop and posts sometimes from here since we have a wireless as well as he having wireless in his own house. He drops in here on a daily basis. I am French Canadian. Neanias is Swiss. We speak mainly in English with each other, however.

episkopos
Feb 25th 2011, 08:15 PM
I don't. Neo-Platonic Dualism is something very different than spiritual understanding. The etherial nature of it makes it hard for folks to connect to. The appeal of gnosticism in the 2nd century was its seemingly superior understanding of spiritual matters for ones that gravitated towards it.




Is your young friend at your house, using your computer?



And that is in response to, what, exactly?



I'm apprehending something here, it seems....




The gospel is not just in words but in power. (Is that neo-Platonic yet?) ;)

This power allows us to walk in fellowship with God and His people. This is NT grace. The power to become sons of God through discipleship to Christ.

No human philosophy can raise the dead, heal the sick, and cast out demons. That is the job of Christians in the world. That is the level we fight at. You will never find a disciple in the NT involved in political action...except Judas of course.

A Christian thus is to not be like the rest of the world, but set apart. Doing things differently where motive and understanding are concerned. He is become a mediator (priest and an ambassador or a different kingdom. Does a foreign dignitary seek to become involved in domestic politics? This is a conflict of interest.

So when we tackle a subject like evoking a change in the world...we must begin with ourselves...as in men must change before the world changes.

Along this path we begin to understand how that principalities influence and manipulate the proceedings here below. But we ouselves are submitted to Christ and His will...Thy will be done.

It is the MEANS that we employ that set us apart from the world. In Christ the MEANS is the end...it is the lesson. We can't take any shortcuts to reach a goal. We learn of Christ by the very way everything is done in our lives.

Christ's rule over us must be total...even every thought must be submitted to Christ.

We no longer think OR act as the world in this way.

So our MEANS are spiritual.

This does not mean that we don't help people with our hands. It means that these hands are submitted to the Spirit.


Now human reasoning is an enemy of Spirit. As Jesus asks...why do you reason among yourselves?

This is where I lose you I think.

Human reasoning is good up to a point...then it gets in the way of God. If we would do a perfect work, then our reasoning will NOT be required.

the rookie
Feb 25th 2011, 08:23 PM
Neo-platonic dualism - or at least, ideas that flow from it - promotes a false dichotomy between natural and spiritual, particularly as it relates to our future (forsaking the natural and leaving it behind to embrace a solely "spiritual" heaven); gnosticism pits the two against one another by proclaiming "spiritual" as superior to "natural". That is unbiblical.

For example, to love the Lord with all of my mind partly requires that I engage my faculties of reason in pondering the things of God - it's the false dualism of Greek Neo-Platonic thought that calls that eschews that and appeals to a more "spiritual" reality while it is gnosticism that calls rational thought, logic, and the engaging of the mind with the things of God "wicked".

keck553
Feb 25th 2011, 08:26 PM
Neo-platonic dualism - or at least, ideas that flow from it - promotes a false dichotomy between natural and spiritual, particularly as it relates to our future (forsaking the natural and leaving it behind to embrace a solely "spiritual" heaven); gnosticism pits the two against one another by proclaiming "spiritual" as superior to "natural". That is unbiblical.

For example, to love the Lord with all of my mind partly requires that I engage my faculties of reason in pondering the things of God - it's the false dualism of Greek Neo-Platonic thought that calls that eschews that and appeals to a more "spiritual" reality while it is gnosticism that calls rational thought, logic, and the engaging of the mind with the things of God "wicked".

Yep. And some folks say 'comptemplative prayer' is a 'new' idea.....

RabbiKnife
Feb 25th 2011, 08:29 PM
Let's see...

So when Paul invoked his rights as a Roman citizen in order to (a) keep from getting his head cut off (ok, stoned to death) and (b) in order to get a free trip to Rome, he must have sinned.

Got it.

episkopos
Feb 25th 2011, 08:31 PM
Neo-platonic dualism - or at least, ideas that flow from it - promotes a false dichotomy between natural and spiritual, particularly as it relates to our future (forsaking the natural and leaving it behind to embrace a solely "spiritual" heaven); gnosticism pits the two against one another by proclaiming "spiritual" as superior to "natural". That is unbiblical.

For example, to love the Lord with all of my mind partly requires that I engage my faculties of reason in pondering the things of God - it's the false dualism of Greek Neo-Platonic thought that calls that eschews that and appeals to a more "spiritual" reality while it is gnosticism that calls rational thought, logic, and the engaging of the mind with the things of God "wicked".

You are throwing away the spiritual baby with the bath water. Spiritual means is what we are called to. You can't give the devil a black eye with a natural fist. Even if you got every vote on the planet that does not bring heaven closer to earth.

Do you see Jesus as a natural reformer rather than a radical revolutionary who empowers a people to miraculous exploits?

Actually the dichotomy is with they that agree with Jesus on sunday and then do as the rest of the world on monday.

God's WAYS are above men's. I'm not calling natural means wicked or evil. I'm saying that they are insufficient and fly in the face of a better way that is being ignored. Why try to dig with a spoon when you have a backhoe?

What would prompt a people to look away from God and say...we can handle this?

episkopos
Feb 25th 2011, 08:40 PM
Let's see...

So when Paul invoked his rights as a Roman citizen in order to (a) keep from getting his head cut off (ok, stoned to death) and (b) in order to get a free trip to Rome, he must have sinned.

Got it.

Paul was not afraid to die. He was stoned and whipped without complaint. He appealed to Caesar to make the justice of his stand in the larger arena. He was put to death by Caesar. Paul never compromised his faith

keck553
Feb 25th 2011, 08:45 PM
Do you see Jesus as a natural reformer rather than a radical revolutionary who empowers a people to miraculous exploits?



Myself, I see Jesus as God and us as radical deconstructionists. And no, I do not see ANY glory given to men to do any exploiting. In ACTs what...4 I think when the lame man was healed, Peter and John didn't thump thier chests and take credit - the first words from their mouths was JESUS, followed by really bad news (you killed your Moshiach) follwed by some good news - REPENT.

the miracle is the gift of Jesus and that we are given the honor to bend our knee and repent of our sins. That is the healing that we need, the one that counts, not some "miraculous exploit."

RabbiKnife
Feb 25th 2011, 08:48 PM
Paul was not afraid to die. He was stoned and whipped without complaint. He appealed to Caesar to make the justice of his stand in the larger arena. He was put to death by Caesar. Paul never compromised his faith

Paul appealed to the Roman guard to keep the Judaisers from killing him in Jerusalem. He appealed to them for safe transport north,avoiding the assassins. He appealed to Caesar in order to avoid being returned to Judea.

He engaged his culture, using every right he had as a Roman citizen.

the rookie
Feb 25th 2011, 08:51 PM
Yep. And some folks say 'comptemplative prayer' is a 'new' idea.....

Not following....?

episkopos
Feb 25th 2011, 08:51 PM
Myself, I see Jesus as God and us as radical deconstructionists. And no, I do not see ANY glory given to men to do any exploiting.

Exploits as in mighty works!

And such as do wickedly against the covenant shall he corrupt by flatteries: but the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits. Daniel 11:32

Jesus said we would do greater works than He. Could that be in regard to legislative reforms? Hmmm

the rookie
Feb 25th 2011, 08:52 PM
Paul was not afraid to die. He was stoned and whipped without complaint. He appealed to Caesar to make the justice of his stand in the larger arena. He was put to death by Caesar. Paul never compromised his faith

I thought that you weren't calling the "natural", "negative"? "Compromising one's faith" sounds quite negative, and well, wicked.

episkopos
Feb 25th 2011, 08:54 PM
Paul appealed to the Roman guard to keep the Judaisers from killing him in Jerusalem. He appealed to them for safe transport north,avoiding the assassins. He appealed to Caesar in order to avoid being returned to Judea.

He engaged his culture, using every right he had as a Roman citizen.

Paul wanted his death to count. He didn't want to be assasinated in secret. He was willing to die but wanted that death to be able to encourage others to follow in his footsteps and ultimately to follow in his Master's footsteps. He wanted his death to be a victory. That is something the assassins wanted to prevent.

Paul was truly as wise as a serpent, but he was as harmless as a dove.

We also are called on to be wise and subvert the present order to bring God glory!

Amen!

episkopos
Feb 25th 2011, 08:55 PM
I thought that you weren't calling the "natural", "negative"? "Compromising one's faith" sounds quite negative, and well, wicked.

I am being totally biblical in my approach. The natural way is the way of the world. We have a better way.

keck553
Feb 25th 2011, 08:55 PM
Not following....?

Oh sorry, I thought it was more mainstreamed by now. It's simular to the Kaballah concept of meditation and chanting to 'reach a higher plain of spiritualilty where all the truth is.' The problem is that those who claim this also claim direct revelation from God. I think it's an outreach of the emergent church.

keck553
Feb 25th 2011, 08:59 PM
Exploits as in mighty works!

And such as do wickedly against the covenant shall he corrupt by flatteries: but the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits. Daniel 11:32

Jesus said we would do greater works than He. Could that be in regard to legislative reforms? Hmmm

Ever think of 'greater' as in quantity, as in outreach, as in make disciples of Me? Jesus is God. Do you propose to do a greater work than God? That makes no sense.

Legislative reforms is vanity. Under the sun stuff. Good luck with that.