"No offence, but Jesus can hardly be called an "infamous kid from Galilee." If that's all you think of Him, then you should exclude yourself from further discussion of this topic."
So, I guess as a non-Christian, my comments are not welcome?
..... and can you imagine this kind of exclusive attitude being touted as a part of the 'Christian values and principles' as the basis for American politics? And this same kind of attitude being integrated into governmental functions as a result?
"..... and can you imagine this kind of exclusive attitude being touted as a part of the 'Christian values and principles' as the basis for American politics? And this same kind of attitude being integrated into governmental functions as a result?
Can you say ... 'Discrimination'? "
Well, actually, yes I can. Despite the notion of freedom this government was founded on - we still had slaves and women couldn't vote and were in many ways treated like property.
So, I am thankful for the notion of separation of church and state and I am thankful for the "fluidness" that our government was designed to have. Otherwise, there could very well still be slavery and women could very well still be "property".
But then, perhaps those are the very Christian values some would like to see put back into our government system, who knows.
Points 1-5 I'm not so sure they play such an important role in the topic at hand.
These may for Allen's benefit, if he still holds to that destructive form of dispensationalism, as taught by Wierwille and Bullinger, which renders the Gospel writings in certain respects inaccessible to himself, with which you evidently agree with me in your comments on point 6.
#7 This discussion isn't about Jesus Christs political leanings. It's meant to be about whether a spiritually minded Christian would see the world through a more liberal or more conservative political lens, and if there is Scriptural evidence to support said views.
I would have thought attempting to determine the sense of Jesus' own "political leanings" might to some degree enable those who claim Him for their Lord some insight as to what might be the spirit to emulate behind their own political leanings.
To me this seems to be addressing actually experiencing and living spiritually. Working as in facing the experience of working out your own salvation rather then relying on others to do it for you. Therefore they would not be able to eat, digest, and bring the fruit of righteousness to bear on their own. For there are many that will not face the Christ and run and hide from that which is hidden within. For various reasons of course. And not to put anyone in a bad light but expressly disclose that it is the individual person who must work and eat rather then to be a busybody in others salvation.
Dancing,
The question though that is pertinent to this thread is how does one's attitude, based upon one's spirituality (Christianity in particular), impact your views of political issues, political parties, etc.?
Does this inherently color your views toward such issues as:
- Social assistance programs
- Crime and punishment
- War and national security
- Healthcare, abortion, euthanasia
- Taxation
- Environmental protection
And then, if I'm the political candidate...who happens to embrace a particular form of spiritiuality...should I cite that spirituality as my justification for my beliefs...or should I just embrace the views as my views...leaving their origins as an "unstated"
I don't think the topic is really about what the "Christian" political position is about any one of those views...rather, is it appropriate to identify your position as the "christian" position...or just the position that you have taken?
well, i can't help but think that this topic is perhaps one of the most difficult topics to discuss without a lot of dramatic misunderstandings and offensiveness (accidental or otherwise)
though sadly, it may be one of the most important and needed lines of conversation for our times, especially considering how many opposing and contradictory forms of fundamentalism (even within the umbrella of Christianity) hold keys of power (politically, economically, medically, militarily, socially, historically, etc...)
so, i am going to try and drop out it
but thanks for the replies, greek2me
i just can't see a way to respond to them without committing to a much longer conversation than i can afford right now
peace
(btw...for what it's worth...i do consider myself a deeply devout Christian)
Actually Mark it has quite the different implications that are expressed in Thessalonians then that are expressed in matters pertaining to taking care of those who cannot feed themselves.
"And then, if I'm the political candidate...who happens to embrace a particular form of spiritiuality...should I cite that spirituality as my justification for my beliefs...or should I just embrace the views as my views...leaving their origins as an "unstated""
Personally, I would be inclined to vote for a candidate that was willing to represent the views of his constituency, regardless of his personal beliefs, because that is what a REPRESENTATIVE is supposed to do. Unfortunately, it isn't what they do, in actuality.
To those that want to see me as trying to be exclusive or devisive or any other "ive"... so be it. I suppose you didn't see my comment to Sir guess about expanding on one of his comments? It was genuine, as was my comment about excluding yourself from a discussion that, in essence, doesn't pertain to you. (non-Christians, that is.)
I wonder.
Why would you participate in a doctrinal discussion, especially one that has the title this thread does, if you are not a Christian? If you think the words "spiritually minded" are for just anyone and any set of beliefs, then you misunderstood the intent of this thread.
Now, is that being elitist or exclusive? Hardly. If you think otherwise then, well, you think otherwise.
=============
Dancing,
To take a phrase like that or any thing said in the bible and try to build some kind of political moral basis for increasing or decreasing any government program is sheer lunacy and is not a "spiritually minded" christian at all.
Well, enlighten us then.
You missed what I said to Joey earlier in that I agree that those things said by Paul were adressed to the chruch and not governement directives. Likewise, the things that the liberally minded Christians cite or point to in an attempt to "prove" their spirituality are also directed to the Church, not society as a whole.
Those who seem to go on and on about separation of Church and State are quite content, seemingly, to follow Christs teaching to His followers (as long as it's done in government program).
Point at hand Greek2me does not understand sirguessalot's reference to Jesus. Therefore attempts to exclude sirguessalot from this thread. Shall we also exclude him from all threads? Or just the ones Greek2me picks.
Who's misunderstanding who? I couldn't exclude someone from discusions in these threads if I tried.
Greek2me, you have apparently skipped the Thessolonians reference. Am I to conclude or get the idea that you do not see what was said or straight out against what was said. Another War I suppose.
No wars. Just didn't see anything that warranted a response. Maybe I did miss something.
==========
Mark,
The question though that is pertinent to this thread is how does one's attitude, based upon one's spirituality (Christianity in particular), impact your views of political issues, political parties, etc.?
Does this inherently color your views toward such issues as:
- Social assistance programs
- Crime and punishment
- War and national security
- Healthcare, abortion, euthanasia
- Taxation
- Environmental protection
Exactly, this is what I want to get at from a Scriptural basis. More tomorrow.
==========
Danny,
I would have thought attempting to determine the sense of Jesus' own "political leanings" might to some degree enable those who claim Him for their Lord some insight as to what might be the spirit to emulate behind their own political leanings.
Very well said. Haven't ever thought of it that way. Certainly, Jesus grew up in a politically turbulent time.
Care to share anything in relation to what Mark posted? Were the issues of His time here on earth so different from the issues of today?
""spiritually minded" are for just anyone and any set of beliefs, then you misunderstood the intent of this thread."
No, I didn't mis the intent - that being that anyone who is not Christian must not be spiritually minded. I simply chose to participate anyway. If you don't like it - too bad.
Personally, I would be inclined to vote for a candidate that was willing to represent the views of his constituency, regardless of his personal beliefs, because that is what a REPRESENTATIVE is supposed to do. Unfortunately, it isn't what they do, in actuality.
Presumably on the issues discussed during the campaign or issues identified as planks on the candidate's platform, this would be the implication:
- For example, if a candidate identifies himself as anti-death penalty in his platform and is elected, one would think that he should stay that way: that's what the voters elected. Yes, he should be consistent with how he ran.
But what about issues that were not forseen during the previous election cycle:
- What happens if there is a massive pandemic that could result in 25% of the populace dying from some here-to-fore unknown disease?
- What happens if the country is attacked by a previously unrecognized threat agent? (i.e., what if we are bombed by Sweeden?)
Should the incumbant place himself in a holding pattern until the polling results are in, so he understands the opinion of his consituency?
What about the occasional issues (particularly with members of the defense, intelligence, and foreign relations committees in both houses), where they receive information during closed session that they wouldn't receive from public sources...he might vote in a seemingly unexplicable way...
Cases like the above are why I think it is important to understand and be comfortable with the philosophy/ spirituality of a candidate. There are, every session, instances that come up where the candidate didn't make his position known. There are instances where he learns new information after being elected that might cause him to change his mind. If the candidate's mindset, the basis upon which he makes his decisions known, is communicated to the voters and if he acts consistent with that mindset, the voter can be left with the thought, "if I were in his shoes and knew what he knew about it, I very well might make the same decision."
If the candidate is totally poll-driven, he might be wrong. And you won't know what he's going to do if he is confronted with a situation where he does not have the guidance of polls (or where it is apparent that the populace does not have all the information needed to make an intelligent decision).
""spiritually minded" are for just anyone and any set of beliefs, then you misunderstood the intent of this thread."
No, I didn't mis the intent - that being that anyone who is not Christian must not be spiritually minded. I simply chose to participate anyway. If you don't like it - too bad.
I personally (regardless of others on this thread) am interested in what anybody who chooses to <i>constructively</i> inject input has to say, regardless of what kind of spirituality they embrace. I reserve the right to respectfully disagree, but being exposed to other perceptions is a good method to get smarter.
----------------------------
BTW, Jesus was a good Jewish boy. There is much to learn based on that fact.
Mark,
Exactly, this is what I want to get at from a Scriptural basis. More tomorrow.
It might be a good thing to have one thread per topic...so that way it doesn't derail too badly.
Yeah, Mark, I agree with you to a point. BUT (you had to know that was coming), I am of the opinion that "closed sessions" wherein decisions are rendered should be very few and very far between. I am also of the opinion that unless there is a crisis/emergency, decisions shouldn't be made over night.
I am on a school board. I follow our city council meetings quite closely. I fervently wish that our state and federal government operated more like a school board or a city council. That to me, is how our government is supposed to operate. Congressmen are supposed to represent the people who elected them -they are supposed to vote according to what those people want.
If it actually worked that way, there would be far less corruption and far fewer "special interest groups" who were able to get their way by bribing candidates with campaign contributions.
That being said, yes I think the moral caliber of the person who is going to represent us counts. BUT, if those elected truly represented us, their moral caliber could simply be measured by honesty and integrity and it wouldn't matter much if said representative was a liberal Christian, a Conservative Christian, a Jew, an athiest, a Muslim - because said representative would be doing what his constituency wanted instead of just what he/she wanted.
Actually Mark it has quite the different implications that are expressed in Thessalonians then that are expressed in matters pertaining to taking care of those who cannot feed themselves.
The principle epitomized in Mt 25:31ff show the charity we should be extending to those without. But this is a completely different issue than sloth.
Again, the principle of subsidiarity should be viewed, both in light of the 2 Thes citation and the Matt 25 citation. First, a person has a responsibility to take care of himself and his family. If he is unable to do so, then extended family, local community, other members of his particular Church, &tc., should step up to the plate, out of charity and concern for their brother. Cf Gen 4:9.
Note that, in the context of the Bible, the State has no role in this function: it is far more localized, as it should be.
In addition, this is witness to our treatment of those who CANNOT take care for themselves...not those who WON'T take care or simply DON'T take care.
Well if it means that a person would be denyed food in Thess. might as well just put a bullet in his head because he will die of starvation if he don't eat. It don't work that way imo. As well as the references in other places I think refer to spiritual things.
I mean it's obvious that if someone don't work they will soon run out of food. And I would give him some food to eat even if he didn't want to work. But not forever. That person would have to get a job and work eventually.
I do wonder why a lot of people are not considered a valued asset to the discussion regardless of what is initialy perceived about people.
It's not about whether people are considered a valuable asset to the discussion. Not all discussions require input from all people. I think it's a msitake to think otherwise. If the government were to be run like a school board or town meeting, could you imagine the difficulties it would involve in a situation that required real-time decision making and action?
Such a concept is simply not feasible, nor is it Biblical. Responsibility, in part, was transferred to those who were selected to perform the administrative tasks.
When it was made known to Moses that he should have help governing the Israelites, he was told to find some men to help him in the work. Those men had to meet certain criteria.
Deut. 1:13-17
Take you wise men, and understanding, and known among your tribes, and I will make them rulers over you.
And ye answered me, and said, The thing which thou hast spoken is good for us to do.
So I took the chief of your tribes, wise men, and known, and made them heads over you, captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, and captains over fifties, and captains over tens, and officers among your tribes.
And I charged your judges at that time, saying, Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him.
Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God's: and the cause that is too hard for you, bring it unto me, and I will hear it.
This, as near as I can tell, is the first sharing of governmental responsibilities (excluding Aaron who shared priestly duties.) One could say that this is the first government expansion. The men involved in the government were to be wise, have understanding and be known among the people.
It is certain that it was still what we call a Theocracy, in that, "the judgement is God's."
===========
Mark,
I don't know if we need to look at each one as it's one thread, but I do want to look at a couple of the points you posted. I think they are very valid points to discuss.
Does this inherently color your views toward such issues as:
- Social assistance programs
- Crime and punishment
- War and national security
- Healthcare, abortion, euthanasia
- Taxation
- Environmental protection
I would think that social assistance programs, Biblically speaking, fall under the jurisdiction of the Church, not any government agency. When Jesus fed the 5,000 it was not society at large but people who were there listening to Him. Whether they were Christians or not He, at least, didn't differentiate or exclude. Everyone there was fed. Then again, He didn't tax all the people to feed some of the people as do governments today.
In Acts, when the Apostles needed help in the ministration to the people, some of the women weren't getting their share. The context, though, is the Church, not a secular government.
Acts 6:3-6
Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.
And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch:
Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them.
This similarites between the qualification of this group and the group that Moses chose is striking. Again, the government here is the governing of the Church, not secular governments as we know them today.
I think it's when the Israelites desired to be like the other nations (gentiles, who had kings) is when taxation, punishment of crime and certain "rights" came to be realised. (more on this tomorrow or monday)
One subject on the list is extremely clear. Only self-justifiers would find a way to circumvent the paying of taxes.
Jesus could not have been more clear than to say what He did with regard to the paying of taxes.
Matt 22:19-22
And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?
They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.
As a taxpayer, obviously, I want to pay as little as possible. As a citizen, I want the government to use as little as possible. As a Christian, I pay all that is required.
Perhaps you're right, Mark, about each one on the list needing a seperate thread. Having given some thought to crime and punishment I can see how that con lead to a huge discussion on it's own.
OK...I've ventured into the 'doctrinal forum" to discuss this issue, even though I generally stay away from this forum...and for good reason (at least to me)...
Allow me to preface my comments by stating that I gave up, a long time ago, worshipping the bible. As I stated previously (somewhere) that the 1st century Christians didn't have the new testament to study, "rightly divide", dissect, discover the mathematical exactness and scientific precision, or turn their spirituality into an intellectual excercise...they simply lived their lives with the spirit of God within and were led by the Lord...
That being said, I believe that within the scriptures, one can discover what twi referred to as the "scope"...or an understanding of the heart of it's entirety. To me, the message is clear...we are to live as compassionate and loving people...caring for one another. You can break it down into categories if you want to by saying this is the responsibilty of the "church" and not the government if you want to...I think that's a cop out.
Our form of government is supposed to be a representaive form of government...in other words, when our government does something, they are doing it in MY name...and YOURS. Yes it's true that each family should take care of it's own...and that each local community should take care of it's own local problems...I believe in decentralizing power....but the reality of the situation is that we have a very powerful centralized government that is spending our money on a variety of things...
...I believe that a spiritually minded Christian should desire to see Christian principles applied in every situation possible...whether it be individually, on a local level, federal level, on a church level or a government level...or whatever. Right is right and wrong is wrong.
The same bible that says that if you don't work, you shouldn't eat...also says that we should take care of the widows and those who cannot work and are in need...what about the war veterans who are now paraplegics?...what about those who are brain damaged?...what about the single mom with 5 kids and she works at Burger King?...OK...you say these things should be taken care of by the church and the private sector...I agree...but what's so damned wrong about the government ( who is spending OUR tax dollars) from playing a role in this also?...afterall...they represent us.
He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword...spending billions upon billions to produce the most awesome military might the world has ever seen...and some of you guys cry like banshees when the suggestion is made to spend some of OUR money on helping people?...ever volunteer your time in a soup kitchen?...I have. It would break your heart to see the condition of so many broken people who have nothing and cannot fare for themselves....
While the greedy devilish corporations ( whose ONLY concern is profit at any cost) are ripping us off blind for billions of dollars, people are worried about some poor schmuck who's collecting food stamps just to survive?...where's your compassion? where's the love of God?
I'm not going to quote you scriptures to prove my point...those days are over for me...I'll simply pray that the Lord opens your eyes and your hearts...
I'm all for taking care of people in every sense of careing and feeding and seeing to it that their needs are met either by competent work or charity. What I'm not for is taking scripture to back up the programs if the scripture used is not talking about the particular principle. There are plenty of scriptures that say to help those in need of physical needs.
The don't work/don't eat verse does not apply to any of these physical situations. It is not about whether or not someone can do physical work to provide physical food on the table. In fact if it is applyed in that way it goes against many of the other scriptures that say just the opposite. And that is one of my objections.
The other is that of excluding input from other people. Perhaps you need a quick answerr? I don't think so. Those who have posted on this thread have been underestamated as to what they can contribute to the ideals and principles that you are calling Christian. Call them what you want. It's no wonder Thomas Jefferson was considered to not be a Christian. He probably wanted it that way. Have you ever seen the Jefferson Bible? It's all about morals.
If others are underestamated then I suspect that the underestamator is underestamating him/her self also.
That's the point... exactly! To me, it seems those that are liberally minded politically see the words of Jesus 'feed the poor, heal the sick' etc. as directives to form government programs to do said acts and NOT the church.
In fact, one poster in the other forum used the above words to say that Jesus would be considered a liberal today.
The words Paul wrote to the Thessalonians are directed to the Church. Period.
The fact that a scriptural directive(suggestion?) was given specifically to the church, does not mean that a secular government is forbidden to follow the principle within that directive. Neither should it be bound to follow that directive.
Sometimes biblical principles overlap secular ones. Many non-Christian "liberals" also want programs to feed the poor, yet they do not necessarily base their reasons upon the Judeo/Christian scriptures.
By Greek2me
I would think that social assistance programs, Biblically speaking, fall under the jurisdiction of the Church, not any government agency. When Jesus fed the 5,000 it was not society at large but people who were there listening to Him. Whether they were Christians or not He, at least, didn't differentiate or exclude. Everyone there was fed. Then again, He didn't tax all the people to feed some of the people as do governments today.
I would disagree here. The Bible addresses Christians and the church - not the secular government.
Once again, my take on this, is that Jesus' general ehortation to the feed the poor, was not a directive 'against' a secular government from also feeding the poor.
Besides that, from a practical standpoint, considering the fractured state of the Christian church and its differing twists and beliefs, thast it could not handle, and neither would it be collectively willing to take on the social programs that the secular government does.
Seems to me that what you are suggesting is to have a particular variety of "spiritually minded" Christians, mold a secular government by majority vote, and then force a particular version of Christian values upon the general populace through that secular government.
There are social mores that are not based upon Christianity, or religion at all for that matter. The desire for well-doing is not unique to Jews and Christians or religious folks.
What you are suggesting seems to be a particular Christian mindset that would forbid others from well-doing through the taxes they willing pay to a secular government. -- Should the Red Cross and other non-Christian charities also be forbidden from feeding the poor, since the Bible does not specifically direct them to do so?
It would seem to me that a "spiritually-minded" Christian would first and foremost be concerned with his own personal walk with God in "minding the spirit". Then next, how his own "church" may also collectively "mind the spirit" in well-doing. Then some where way down the priority line he may then concern himself in matters of a secular government.
If the collective Christian "church" would FIRST first go about "feeding the poor" as Jesus suggested - its own first, and then those without, then maybe government would not have as big of a burden as it does.
Through the years, I've had (and have expressed as much before even here) doubts as to the historicity of Jesus - that such a man as Jesus had actually existed. The Bible-as-infallible-Superbook had finally failed in its spell upon me (or if you please, I was no longer held by it). I thought to see limitations to the traditional, doctrinal logic that the Bible as a whole can and should be trusted no matter what.
Yet the material which has remained most compelling to me - that convinces me that an extraordinary man existed in Palestine 2,000 years ago - are the parables of Jesus. These literary snapshots of life in a Mediterranean society; these extended metaphors which also provides to us a glimpse of life and culture from a distant era, followed by a "twist" near the end; What was Jesus trying to convey to his closest audience through these short "films"? Is it also important for us - to gather the most from Jesus' masterpieces - to understand the kind of life his audience lived? What kind of people were these folk?
"No telephones, no motor cars, not a single luxury. Like Robinson Caruso..."? (sorry, I've watched too many modern bad shows...)
I can assume that not all of Jesus' audience lived in houses like we do, had even a crappy car, had even the delicacy of boxed macaroni and cheese. The masses of "unemployed" were vast, and not many found themselves at a place of their own choosing or slothfulness; many were affixed to a life of Lazarus simply by virtue of not having been the first-born of a family, that fortunate one always first in line for all the means and support a family might have at its disposal. Which was not much, amid the strain and pressure of the heavy burdens yoked upon them from the native, local, religious and Roman authorities. The vast chasm that existed between "the haves" and the "have-nots" was far greater than in our own time and country.
When Jesus incorporated "administrators" or "stewards" in his parables, it wasn't primarily to convey the lesson, "treat your stuff wisely and well, like that guy in that story handles his stuff"; - the opinions and reactions of Jesus' audience - comprising a good many folks among the "have-nots" - would have been far more cynical. For administrators or "stewards" were also not well-liked as the "strongmen" for the landowners, who oft went through whatever means possible to extort and bleed money from those using and living on the land.
"Stewards" were not generally thought about among the "have-nots" to whom Jesus spoke. Which cannot help but make me wonder if Paul chose an unwise comparison in titling himself a "steward" (lol) - little wonder if he was more popular abroad than in that region. This may exhibit a remarkable difference between the classes and societies among whom Jesus and Paul moved and worked. Yet they shared a magnificant ideals of 'equality'.
When the savior (as depicted) entered the world, he moved and lived among the outcasts, the needy, the hungry, the sick, the lame, the blind, the deaf, the unclean, the despised, - all those, BTW, as we know from the OT and Qumran material - were deemed unworthy of the presence of Israel's god and angels. Forbidden from the temple, because they were deemed by both "Liberals" (Pharisees) and "Conservatives" (Sadducees) as "unholy" of even standing before a god's presence.
But in another parable, these rejects - these losers - these lowest of the lowest - are the very ones invited to celebrate the messianic banquet.
"The last shall become first, and the first shall become last". The tables are turned. Like in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus.
Wealth, as I have mentioned before in other threads when discussing William Herzog's book, was oft esteemed as a manifestation of one's "righteousness". I find it striking how the aristocratic, religious leaders of the temple held a view stunningly similar to that of the "prosperity" mindset of leaders in twi.
But let's think for a moment, if one today becomes discouraged when thinking of ones ' hard-earned taxes going toward supporting a segment of the population, those which for whatever reason, cannot or will not help themselves. If one still believes that we're saved by God saved by His "grace" - and not by "works" or any doings of our own - doesn't that make Christians the ultimate "freeloader" recipients of the eternal social world to come?
Perhaps we ought consider twice before presuming woe and blame upon the bums at the gates.
Tomorrow, we can be them. In the flash of an eye, one unforeseen event or tragedy can turn one's entire life and world upside down.
One can lose their job, their home, their family. Get sick, become unloved and forgotten, only to deteriorate beneath a highway overpass beneath a stinkin pile of speckly-white pidgeon dung.
So closes my long-winded thoughts for the evening.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
7
10
9
18
Popular Days
May 26
23
May 25
9
May 24
9
May 27
6
Top Posters In This Topic
Abigail 7 posts
Greek2me 10 posts
markomalley 9 posts
dancing 18 posts
Popular Days
May 26 2006
23 posts
May 25 2006
9 posts
May 24 2006
9 posts
May 27 2006
6 posts
Abigail
"No offence, but Jesus can hardly be called an "infamous kid from Galilee." If that's all you think of Him, then you should exclude yourself from further discussion of this topic."
So, I guess as a non-Christian, my comments are not welcome?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
..... and can you imagine this kind of exclusive attitude being touted as a part of the 'Christian values and principles' as the basis for American politics? And this same kind of attitude being integrated into governmental functions as a result?
Can you say ... 'Discrimination'?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
"..... and can you imagine this kind of exclusive attitude being touted as a part of the 'Christian values and principles' as the basis for American politics? And this same kind of attitude being integrated into governmental functions as a result?
Can you say ... 'Discrimination'? "
Well, actually, yes I can. Despite the notion of freedom this government was founded on - we still had slaves and women couldn't vote and were in many ways treated like property.
So, I am thankful for the notion of separation of church and state and I am thankful for the "fluidness" that our government was designed to have. Otherwise, there could very well still be slavery and women could very well still be "property".
But then, perhaps those are the very Christian values some would like to see put back into our government system, who knows.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
These may for Allen's benefit, if he still holds to that destructive form of dispensationalism, as taught by Wierwille and Bullinger, which renders the Gospel writings in certain respects inaccessible to himself, with which you evidently agree with me in your comments on point 6.
I would have thought attempting to determine the sense of Jesus' own "political leanings" might to some degree enable those who claim Him for their Lord some insight as to what might be the spirit to emulate behind their own political leanings.
Danny
Edited by TheInvisibleDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Dancing,
The question though that is pertinent to this thread is how does one's attitude, based upon one's spirituality (Christianity in particular), impact your views of political issues, political parties, etc.?
Does this inherently color your views toward such issues as:
- Social assistance programs
- Crime and punishment
- War and national security
- Healthcare, abortion, euthanasia
- Taxation
- Environmental protection
And then, if I'm the political candidate...who happens to embrace a particular form of spiritiuality...should I cite that spirituality as my justification for my beliefs...or should I just embrace the views as my views...leaving their origins as an "unstated"
I don't think the topic is really about what the "Christian" political position is about any one of those views...rather, is it appropriate to identify your position as the "christian" position...or just the position that you have taken?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
well, i can't help but think that this topic is perhaps one of the most difficult topics to discuss without a lot of dramatic misunderstandings and offensiveness (accidental or otherwise)
though sadly, it may be one of the most important and needed lines of conversation for our times, especially considering how many opposing and contradictory forms of fundamentalism (even within the umbrella of Christianity) hold keys of power (politically, economically, medically, militarily, socially, historically, etc...)
so, i am going to try and drop out it
but thanks for the replies, greek2me
i just can't see a way to respond to them without committing to a much longer conversation than i can afford right now
peace
(btw...for what it's worth...i do consider myself a deeply devout Christian)
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
dancing
Actually Mark it has quite the different implications that are expressed in Thessalonians then that are expressed in matters pertaining to taking care of those who cannot feed themselves.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
"And then, if I'm the political candidate...who happens to embrace a particular form of spiritiuality...should I cite that spirituality as my justification for my beliefs...or should I just embrace the views as my views...leaving their origins as an "unstated""
Personally, I would be inclined to vote for a candidate that was willing to represent the views of his constituency, regardless of his personal beliefs, because that is what a REPRESENTATIVE is supposed to do. Unfortunately, it isn't what they do, in actuality.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Greek2me
To those that want to see me as trying to be exclusive or devisive or any other "ive"... so be it. I suppose you didn't see my comment to Sir guess about expanding on one of his comments? It was genuine, as was my comment about excluding yourself from a discussion that, in essence, doesn't pertain to you. (non-Christians, that is.)
I wonder.
Why would you participate in a doctrinal discussion, especially one that has the title this thread does, if you are not a Christian? If you think the words "spiritually minded" are for just anyone and any set of beliefs, then you misunderstood the intent of this thread.
Now, is that being elitist or exclusive? Hardly. If you think otherwise then, well, you think otherwise.
=============
Dancing,
Well, enlighten us then.You missed what I said to Joey earlier in that I agree that those things said by Paul were adressed to the chruch and not governement directives. Likewise, the things that the liberally minded Christians cite or point to in an attempt to "prove" their spirituality are also directed to the Church, not society as a whole.
Those who seem to go on and on about separation of Church and State are quite content, seemingly, to follow Christs teaching to His followers (as long as it's done in government program).
Who's misunderstanding who? I couldn't exclude someone from discusions in these threads if I tried.
No wars. Just didn't see anything that warranted a response. Maybe I did miss something.==========
Mark,
Exactly, this is what I want to get at from a Scriptural basis. More tomorrow.
==========
Danny,
Very well said. Haven't ever thought of it that way. Certainly, Jesus grew up in a politically turbulent time.
Care to share anything in relation to what Mark posted? Were the issues of His time here on earth so different from the issues of today?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
""spiritually minded" are for just anyone and any set of beliefs, then you misunderstood the intent of this thread."
No, I didn't mis the intent - that being that anyone who is not Christian must not be spiritually minded. I simply chose to participate anyway. If you don't like it - too bad.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Presumably on the issues discussed during the campaign or issues identified as planks on the candidate's platform, this would be the implication:
- For example, if a candidate identifies himself as anti-death penalty in his platform and is elected, one would think that he should stay that way: that's what the voters elected. Yes, he should be consistent with how he ran.
But what about issues that were not forseen during the previous election cycle:
- What happens if there is a massive pandemic that could result in 25% of the populace dying from some here-to-fore unknown disease?
- What happens if the country is attacked by a previously unrecognized threat agent? (i.e., what if we are bombed by Sweeden?)
Should the incumbant place himself in a holding pattern until the polling results are in, so he understands the opinion of his consituency?
What about the occasional issues (particularly with members of the defense, intelligence, and foreign relations committees in both houses), where they receive information during closed session that they wouldn't receive from public sources...he might vote in a seemingly unexplicable way...
Cases like the above are why I think it is important to understand and be comfortable with the philosophy/ spirituality of a candidate. There are, every session, instances that come up where the candidate didn't make his position known. There are instances where he learns new information after being elected that might cause him to change his mind. If the candidate's mindset, the basis upon which he makes his decisions known, is communicated to the voters and if he acts consistent with that mindset, the voter can be left with the thought, "if I were in his shoes and knew what he knew about it, I very well might make the same decision."
If the candidate is totally poll-driven, he might be wrong. And you won't know what he's going to do if he is confronted with a situation where he does not have the guidance of polls (or where it is apparent that the populace does not have all the information needed to make an intelligent decision).
I personally (regardless of others on this thread) am interested in what anybody who chooses to <i>constructively</i> inject input has to say, regardless of what kind of spirituality they embrace. I reserve the right to respectfully disagree, but being exposed to other perceptions is a good method to get smarter.
----------------------------
BTW, Jesus was a good Jewish boy. There is much to learn based on that fact.
It might be a good thing to have one thread per topic...so that way it doesn't derail too badly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Yeah, Mark, I agree with you to a point. BUT (you had to know that was coming), I am of the opinion that "closed sessions" wherein decisions are rendered should be very few and very far between. I am also of the opinion that unless there is a crisis/emergency, decisions shouldn't be made over night.
I am on a school board. I follow our city council meetings quite closely. I fervently wish that our state and federal government operated more like a school board or a city council. That to me, is how our government is supposed to operate. Congressmen are supposed to represent the people who elected them -they are supposed to vote according to what those people want.
If it actually worked that way, there would be far less corruption and far fewer "special interest groups" who were able to get their way by bribing candidates with campaign contributions.
That being said, yes I think the moral caliber of the person who is going to represent us counts. BUT, if those elected truly represented us, their moral caliber could simply be measured by honesty and integrity and it wouldn't matter much if said representative was a liberal Christian, a Conservative Christian, a Jew, an athiest, a Muslim - because said representative would be doing what his constituency wanted instead of just what he/she wanted.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
The principle epitomized in Mt 25:31ff show the charity we should be extending to those without. But this is a completely different issue than sloth.
Again, the principle of subsidiarity should be viewed, both in light of the 2 Thes citation and the Matt 25 citation. First, a person has a responsibility to take care of himself and his family. If he is unable to do so, then extended family, local community, other members of his particular Church, &tc., should step up to the plate, out of charity and concern for their brother. Cf Gen 4:9.
Note that, in the context of the Bible, the State has no role in this function: it is far more localized, as it should be.
In addition, this is witness to our treatment of those who CANNOT take care for themselves...not those who WON'T take care or simply DON'T take care.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dancing
Well if it means that a person would be denyed food in Thess. might as well just put a bullet in his head because he will die of starvation if he don't eat. It don't work that way imo. As well as the references in other places I think refer to spiritual things.
I mean it's obvious that if someone don't work they will soon run out of food. And I would give him some food to eat even if he didn't want to work. But not forever. That person would have to get a job and work eventually.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dancing
btw, Greek2me, I don't have any preconceived ideas or notions about your reasons for posting this thread and your posts.
I do wonder why a lot of people are not considered a valued asset to the discussion regardless of what is initialy perceived about people.
Misunderstanding is a big problem I suppose. We could just let things be that seem a way that may mean something else. Talking to myself too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Greek2me
dancing,
It's not about whether people are considered a valuable asset to the discussion. Not all discussions require input from all people. I think it's a msitake to think otherwise. If the government were to be run like a school board or town meeting, could you imagine the difficulties it would involve in a situation that required real-time decision making and action?Such a concept is simply not feasible, nor is it Biblical. Responsibility, in part, was transferred to those who were selected to perform the administrative tasks.
When it was made known to Moses that he should have help governing the Israelites, he was told to find some men to help him in the work. Those men had to meet certain criteria.
Deut. 1:13-17
Take you wise men, and understanding, and known among your tribes, and I will make them rulers over you.
And ye answered me, and said, The thing which thou hast spoken is good for us to do.
So I took the chief of your tribes, wise men, and known, and made them heads over you, captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, and captains over fifties, and captains over tens, and officers among your tribes.
And I charged your judges at that time, saying, Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him.
Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God's: and the cause that is too hard for you, bring it unto me, and I will hear it.
This, as near as I can tell, is the first sharing of governmental responsibilities (excluding Aaron who shared priestly duties.) One could say that this is the first government expansion. The men involved in the government were to be wise, have understanding and be known among the people.
It is certain that it was still what we call a Theocracy, in that, "the judgement is God's."
===========
Mark,
I don't know if we need to look at each one as it's one thread, but I do want to look at a couple of the points you posted. I think they are very valid points to discuss.
I would think that social assistance programs, Biblically speaking, fall under the jurisdiction of the Church, not any government agency. When Jesus fed the 5,000 it was not society at large but people who were there listening to Him. Whether they were Christians or not He, at least, didn't differentiate or exclude. Everyone there was fed. Then again, He didn't tax all the people to feed some of the people as do governments today.
In Acts, when the Apostles needed help in the ministration to the people, some of the women weren't getting their share. The context, though, is the Church, not a secular government.
Acts 6:3-6
Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.
And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch:
Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them.
This similarites between the qualification of this group and the group that Moses chose is striking. Again, the government here is the governing of the Church, not secular governments as we know them today.
I think it's when the Israelites desired to be like the other nations (gentiles, who had kings) is when taxation, punishment of crime and certain "rights" came to be realised. (more on this tomorrow or monday)
One subject on the list is extremely clear. Only self-justifiers would find a way to circumvent the paying of taxes.
Jesus could not have been more clear than to say what He did with regard to the paying of taxes.
Matt 22:19-22
And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?
They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.
As a taxpayer, obviously, I want to pay as little as possible. As a citizen, I want the government to use as little as possible. As a Christian, I pay all that is required.
Perhaps you're right, Mark, about each one on the list needing a seperate thread. Having given some thought to crime and punishment I can see how that con lead to a huge discussion on it's own.
Shall we look at them one at a time?
Edited by Greek2meLink to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
OK...I've ventured into the 'doctrinal forum" to discuss this issue, even though I generally stay away from this forum...and for good reason (at least to me)...
Allow me to preface my comments by stating that I gave up, a long time ago, worshipping the bible. As I stated previously (somewhere) that the 1st century Christians didn't have the new testament to study, "rightly divide", dissect, discover the mathematical exactness and scientific precision, or turn their spirituality into an intellectual excercise...they simply lived their lives with the spirit of God within and were led by the Lord...
That being said, I believe that within the scriptures, one can discover what twi referred to as the "scope"...or an understanding of the heart of it's entirety. To me, the message is clear...we are to live as compassionate and loving people...caring for one another. You can break it down into categories if you want to by saying this is the responsibilty of the "church" and not the government if you want to...I think that's a cop out.
Our form of government is supposed to be a representaive form of government...in other words, when our government does something, they are doing it in MY name...and YOURS. Yes it's true that each family should take care of it's own...and that each local community should take care of it's own local problems...I believe in decentralizing power....but the reality of the situation is that we have a very powerful centralized government that is spending our money on a variety of things...
...I believe that a spiritually minded Christian should desire to see Christian principles applied in every situation possible...whether it be individually, on a local level, federal level, on a church level or a government level...or whatever. Right is right and wrong is wrong.
The same bible that says that if you don't work, you shouldn't eat...also says that we should take care of the widows and those who cannot work and are in need...what about the war veterans who are now paraplegics?...what about those who are brain damaged?...what about the single mom with 5 kids and she works at Burger King?...OK...you say these things should be taken care of by the church and the private sector...I agree...but what's so damned wrong about the government ( who is spending OUR tax dollars) from playing a role in this also?...afterall...they represent us.
He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword...spending billions upon billions to produce the most awesome military might the world has ever seen...and some of you guys cry like banshees when the suggestion is made to spend some of OUR money on helping people?...ever volunteer your time in a soup kitchen?...I have. It would break your heart to see the condition of so many broken people who have nothing and cannot fare for themselves....
While the greedy devilish corporations ( whose ONLY concern is profit at any cost) are ripping us off blind for billions of dollars, people are worried about some poor schmuck who's collecting food stamps just to survive?...where's your compassion? where's the love of God?
I'm not going to quote you scriptures to prove my point...those days are over for me...I'll simply pray that the Lord opens your eyes and your hearts...
Peace.
Edited by GrouchoMarxJrLink to comment
Share on other sites
dancing
I'm all for taking care of people in every sense of careing and feeding and seeing to it that their needs are met either by competent work or charity. What I'm not for is taking scripture to back up the programs if the scripture used is not talking about the particular principle. There are plenty of scriptures that say to help those in need of physical needs.
The don't work/don't eat verse does not apply to any of these physical situations. It is not about whether or not someone can do physical work to provide physical food on the table. In fact if it is applyed in that way it goes against many of the other scriptures that say just the opposite. And that is one of my objections.
The other is that of excluding input from other people. Perhaps you need a quick answerr? I don't think so. Those who have posted on this thread have been underestamated as to what they can contribute to the ideals and principles that you are calling Christian. Call them what you want. It's no wonder Thomas Jefferson was considered to not be a Christian. He probably wanted it that way. Have you ever seen the Jefferson Bible? It's all about morals.
If others are underestamated then I suspect that the underestamator is underestamating him/her self also.
Edited by dancingLink to comment
Share on other sites
dancing
And I don't worship the bible. It is a source for many things but not to be the golden calf.
Edited by dancingLink to comment
Share on other sites
dancing
I also wish that sirguessalot would bow back in. Should he find the time to do so.
My son who is a moderator on a forum tells me that I shouldn't post a few posts in a row. Lol, he's so funny. Just trying to communicate better.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Sometimes biblical principles overlap secular ones. Many non-Christian "liberals" also want programs to feed the poor, yet they do not necessarily base their reasons upon the Judeo/Christian scriptures.
I would disagree here. The Bible addresses Christians and the church - not the secular government.
Once again, my take on this, is that Jesus' general ehortation to the feed the poor, was not a directive 'against' a secular government from also feeding the poor.
Besides that, from a practical standpoint, considering the fractured state of the Christian church and its differing twists and beliefs, thast it could not handle, and neither would it be collectively willing to take on the social programs that the secular government does.
Seems to me that what you are suggesting is to have a particular variety of "spiritually minded" Christians, mold a secular government by majority vote, and then force a particular version of Christian values upon the general populace through that secular government.
There are social mores that are not based upon Christianity, or religion at all for that matter. The desire for well-doing is not unique to Jews and Christians or religious folks.
What you are suggesting seems to be a particular Christian mindset that would forbid others from well-doing through the taxes they willing pay to a secular government. -- Should the Red Cross and other non-Christian charities also be forbidden from feeding the poor, since the Bible does not specifically direct them to do so?
It would seem to me that a "spiritually-minded" Christian would first and foremost be concerned with his own personal walk with God in "minding the spirit". Then next, how his own "church" may also collectively "mind the spirit" in well-doing. Then some where way down the priority line he may then concern himself in matters of a secular government.
If the collective Christian "church" would FIRST first go about "feeding the poor" as Jesus suggested - its own first, and then those without, then maybe government would not have as big of a burden as it does.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Through the years, I've had (and have expressed as much before even here) doubts as to the historicity of Jesus - that such a man as Jesus had actually existed. The Bible-as-infallible-Superbook had finally failed in its spell upon me (or if you please, I was no longer held by it). I thought to see limitations to the traditional, doctrinal logic that the Bible as a whole can and should be trusted no matter what.
Yet the material which has remained most compelling to me - that convinces me that an extraordinary man existed in Palestine 2,000 years ago - are the parables of Jesus. These literary snapshots of life in a Mediterranean society; these extended metaphors which also provides to us a glimpse of life and culture from a distant era, followed by a "twist" near the end; What was Jesus trying to convey to his closest audience through these short "films"? Is it also important for us - to gather the most from Jesus' masterpieces - to understand the kind of life his audience lived? What kind of people were these folk?
"No telephones, no motor cars, not a single luxury. Like Robinson Caruso..."? (sorry, I've watched too many modern bad shows...)
I can assume that not all of Jesus' audience lived in houses like we do, had even a crappy car, had even the delicacy of boxed macaroni and cheese. The masses of "unemployed" were vast, and not many found themselves at a place of their own choosing or slothfulness; many were affixed to a life of Lazarus simply by virtue of not having been the first-born of a family, that fortunate one always first in line for all the means and support a family might have at its disposal. Which was not much, amid the strain and pressure of the heavy burdens yoked upon them from the native, local, religious and Roman authorities. The vast chasm that existed between "the haves" and the "have-nots" was far greater than in our own time and country.
When Jesus incorporated "administrators" or "stewards" in his parables, it wasn't primarily to convey the lesson, "treat your stuff wisely and well, like that guy in that story handles his stuff"; - the opinions and reactions of Jesus' audience - comprising a good many folks among the "have-nots" - would have been far more cynical. For administrators or "stewards" were also not well-liked as the "strongmen" for the landowners, who oft went through whatever means possible to extort and bleed money from those using and living on the land.
"Stewards" were not generally thought about among the "have-nots" to whom Jesus spoke. Which cannot help but make me wonder if Paul chose an unwise comparison in titling himself a "steward" (lol) - little wonder if he was more popular abroad than in that region. This may exhibit a remarkable difference between the classes and societies among whom Jesus and Paul moved and worked. Yet they shared a magnificant ideals of 'equality'.
When the savior (as depicted) entered the world, he moved and lived among the outcasts, the needy, the hungry, the sick, the lame, the blind, the deaf, the unclean, the despised, - all those, BTW, as we know from the OT and Qumran material - were deemed unworthy of the presence of Israel's god and angels. Forbidden from the temple, because they were deemed by both "Liberals" (Pharisees) and "Conservatives" (Sadducees) as "unholy" of even standing before a god's presence.
But in another parable, these rejects - these losers - these lowest of the lowest - are the very ones invited to celebrate the messianic banquet.
"The last shall become first, and the first shall become last". The tables are turned. Like in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus.
Wealth, as I have mentioned before in other threads when discussing William Herzog's book, was oft esteemed as a manifestation of one's "righteousness". I find it striking how the aristocratic, religious leaders of the temple held a view stunningly similar to that of the "prosperity" mindset of leaders in twi.
But let's think for a moment, if one today becomes discouraged when thinking of ones ' hard-earned taxes going toward supporting a segment of the population, those which for whatever reason, cannot or will not help themselves. If one still believes that we're saved by God saved by His "grace" - and not by "works" or any doings of our own - doesn't that make Christians the ultimate "freeloader" recipients of the eternal social world to come?
Perhaps we ought consider twice before presuming woe and blame upon the bums at the gates.
Tomorrow, we can be them. In the flash of an eye, one unforeseen event or tragedy can turn one's entire life and world upside down.
One can lose their job, their home, their family. Get sick, become unloved and forgotten, only to deteriorate beneath a highway overpass beneath a stinkin pile of speckly-white pidgeon dung.
So closes my long-winded thoughts for the evening.
It's been a long week.
Danny
Edited by TheInvisibleDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Danny, all of that notwithstanding,
It doesn't change that fact that only Dittoheads will be allowed in heaven.
Sorry...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dancing
So says George, must be true huh George?
You didn't get that from any of the ones that are spiritually minded here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.