Very good thoughts. Those of us who consider ourselves Christians should consider the words and the example of Jesus in our daily walk.
I would think that the state should set up systems that will encourage that behavior (thus I believe that the Christian representative would encourage charity work through the tax scheme).
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.
I disagree. As a collective, I'm sure the Church - with Christ as it's Head, and with submitted and obedient followers fulfilling their roles, could feed who they are meant to feed. To think anything else, would do it's Lord an injustice. After all, they've done it before. (Acts 5)
I don't think the Church would (or should) be willing to take on the bloat that exists now from said governments.
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?
No and No. I'm not suggesting a particluar mindset nor the forbidding of anyone doing anything. I'm suggesting the limiting of said programs by secular governments. As you stated, Jesus did not advocate a secular government doing what He told to His followers to do. Ok, neither did He forbid it.
Red Cross non-Christian? Perhaps not now, but where do you think they got their ideas from and that red cross symolizes what, if not the blood Christ shed on the cross?
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.
Agreed. Concerning the Church. I said as much in other posts. I don't see the governments burden as needing to be as big as it does. Here's one reason why. I'm sure that with a little searching I could find more.
When I lived in Brownsville, Texas a few years back, I worked as a substitue teacher in the BSD for a while. They have a program that feeds children breakfast, lunch and after-school snacks. Regardless of individual income or any other criteria, the State - through federally subsidized programs - feed 45,000 children three meals a day.
When the breakfast bags were brought to the rooms and untouched by a student - including milk cartons and fruit juices (who may or may not have eaten at home) - instead of being returned to be used again - were thrown away! When I asked the principal and others in the school as to why?... They said that the more breakfast in the bags and lunches they "served" the more money they got from federal subsidies. No body cared whether they were eaten or not.
What's more, many of those kids were children of illegal or "undocumented" guests.
This kind of practice is nonsense and should be stopped.
Danny brings up a valid point regarding stewardship. Surely, just stewardship applys not only to those involved in the government of the Church, but to secular governments as well.
====
Now, back to whether a spiritually-minded Christian would see things through a more liberal, or more conservative lens, politically.
I posted my take on taxes, no one else did. Wonder why?
Let me say this; that if you are a tax cheat and support liberal or conservative politics, you are not a spiritually minded Christian. Full stop. Exclamation point! If you think otherwise, you are mistaken.
I think one of the most telling things about the Bible and the relationship that Christians are to have with the secular world, is summed up in a few lines of Scripture.
1 Timothy 2:1-3
I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
Before anyone points out that this was addressed to Timothy, (and not to the Church) or to Christians as a whole, I would remind them that Timothy would fall under the category of a spiritually minded Christian.
=======
Concerning abortion. I, at one time, supported a womans right to chose. I no longer do. I think abortion is an extremely misunderstood subject in today's society. I see it as murder - plain and simple. Sure you can tell me about how it's not really a person yet; yada, yada, yada... but I would still consider it and you wrong.
This way of thinking took years for me to reach. It has been accompanied by years of prayer and seeking the face of the Lord. Scripturally, I can not point to one Scripture and say, "Thus saith the Lord," likewise, spiritually minded liberal Christians (if there is such a thing) can not point to a Scripture and say the opposite.
I see this subject more of an aggregate understanding of the mind of the Spirit. At least that's my take on the subject, if anyone sees it differently, by all means, let us hear it.
Any other subject like the military or environment
=====
Danny,
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?
I don't read anywhere in the Scriptures that the world to come is going to be socialist. I see a Kingdom and a King of kings - hardly socialist.
Yes, Salvation is the gift of faith freely given by God's grace.
Eph 2:8-10
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Not of works, lest any man should boast.
For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
Proof of Salvation are the good works of faith.
One without the other, is no Salvation at all.
James 2:14-18
What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
You keep bringing up this claim of government being specifically forbidden from providing charitable provisions and other like support to its citizens as from a Godly/biblical standpoint. Can you clearly document/illustrate where this prohibition is shown in the scriptures? I too, when I was in TWI and in later years as a believer held to this view as well. It was just as time went on, I failed to see where in the Bible this was clearly illustrated/required. (Although now I have gotten beyond the "If it is Written in the Holy Writ, it must be Accepted as True" mentality.)
Oh, and I want to see the scriptures themselves where they clearly indicate this, please. Your interpretation alone doesn't suffice. Sorry.
I see a Kingdom and a King of kings - hardly socialist.
Then again, a Kingdom and a King of kings is hardly democratic either (or of a republican form of government, for those here who get their panties in a knot over the word 'democratic'). As I heard someone once say "When Jesus comes back, will He hold elections?", clearly indicating that Jesus' government won't be of the representative form of government variety. Ie., no constitution.
Me? I'd rather go for the representative form of government with a solid wall between church and state, thank you very much. ... But that topic is another dollar for another day, I imagine.
It's not a TWI mindset - I was never in TWI. Clearly illustrating the forbiddance of taxation and what to do with said taxes for a secular government is not detailed in the Scriptures to my knowledge. The payment of said taxes, is. Likewise, clearly advocating said practice (taxation for a secular government) is not spelled out Scripturally. That is, what programs are to be implemetned and what programs are not to be implemented by a secular government.
If you think they are, why don't you clearly show Scriptural proof?
As far as the solid wall between church and State goes, it's interesting to note that you don't see how those more liberally minded use directives from it's Lord to the Church to support social programs. "Feed the poor," is not directed to a secular government. It was and is a directive of the Lord Jesus Christ to His followers.
Funny, when we adhere to it in a secular government, there's not a seperation of church and State issue... it's simply a good idea.
=======
Danny,
You're right. You didn't say socialist. Truly, the world to come will be "social." After all, we are speaking of a family, the basic social element of any society.
Certainly not with the fine material from James which you quoted.
I think it is absolutely remarkable that our "works" - as evidence or expression of
our salvation - constitutes of helping those in need, toward providing such earthly
necessities as food and clothes.
Yes, "our" works - as in those who believe, constitues the helping of those in need. I see that as a Christian's duty - not necessarily to be "outsourced" to a secular government. Any Christian walking with the Lord would certainly do no less than that described in James. To relegate such actions to a secular government and somehow relieve yourself of the personal responsibilty, is a cop out.
I just had this converstaion last night with one of my students. She is a dyed in the wool communist. She said she thinks we (the rich) should pay more taxes and feed all the poor (of the world.) She is also a very devout Greek orthodox. She thinks that any Christian would welcome taxes to go towards feeding the poor.
So, what's the kicker? She is also a teacher and does most of her work as a personal tutor. Much of her income goes unreported.
=========
Joey,
Perhaps you're right. I was wondering when someone would get around to noticing that that seems to be the crux of the issue. Just what does constitute a spiritually-minded Christian?
It's a huge issue, isn't it?
For starters, I would say a spiritually minded Christian is one who is submitted and obedient. One who is seeking to glorify the Lord. One who is part of a fellowship of others in similar state. One who is under a pastor and one who is in the process of emptying themself so that more of Christ can live in them.
I also think a spiritually minded Christian would want to know what is the mind of the Spirit. One who would wait on the Lord for marching orders and depend on the Lord to carry them out.
The question that I would pose is, what IS a representaive form of government supposed to do with the tax money it collects?
A miltary for the defense of the nation?
Police to protect citizens from criminals within it's borders?
Fire department?
health care?
social securiy checks for the elderly?
research grants to better our way of life?
Street sweepers?
It would seem that any endeavor that a government would involve itself with (with our tax dollars) is designed to benefit the citizens of that country. Should these endeavors be limited to things that benefit the entire collective?...or should certain segments of society to be targeted also?...such as AIDS research or cancer research?....or even feeding the poor?
What is your criteria for what tax dollars should be spent on?
If you think they are, why don't you clearly show Scriptural proof?
But you see, chief, it is _you_ who are making the claim of scriptural authenticity/Christian basis for your political theory, not me. My challenge was just to have you document it. Me? I'm done trying to validate political truths/concepts from a 'does the bible say its OK' standpoint. If I didn't, maybe I'd have reason to still call for some of the (now outrageous) OT laws to still be on the books. So perhaps that fact that they don't require stoning for the punishment of crimes ranging from blasphemy to homosexuality to working on the Sabbath should actually put us all at ease, y'think? <_<
But seriously, it absolutely amazes me how many political concepts ('principles' according to some) people claim rigorously that are clearly straight from the scriptures, and yet when you actually look, whatever verses back up their Grande Principles are either scant and/or ripped right out of context, ... either that, or are concepts that have lloonngg been outdated (the stoning illustration I just gave, hmmmm?) And all that they have done with the kind of ((cough)) 'biblical research' ((HURL)) that would make VPW look good by comparison. Damn good!
I've seen this kind of dishonesty every which way but loose when it was/is claimed that America is based on Christianity and was/is supposed to be a Christian nation with Christian laws for Christian purposes; kind of a New Testament version of the Old Testament Isreal so to speak. One example of this is where they take the phrase 'nature's God' out of the Declaration of Independence, and try to extrapolate that, with all kinds of mental gymnastics to boot, as proof as to why it is the Christian God they are talking about. If they only realized what Thomas Jefferson's (the author of that document) Deistic beliefs were all about, they would freak. :o :blink: And no Virginia, Deism is not another form of Christianity, not according to the orthodox definition in any event.
But you see, chief, it is _you_ who are making the claim of scriptural authenticity/Christian basis for your political theory, not me.
I suggest you read my first post in this thread. I don't think you quite got it.
This is not about spiritual authenticity/Christian basis for political theory. It's about whether one who considers him/herself a "spiritually minded Christian" would see the world through a more liberal or more conservative lens, politically speaking, AND the Scriptural evidence to support such a view.
We've already looked at taxes. Or, I should say, I've already posted on taxes - no one else has had a go at it.
The other ideas, viewpoints, theories(?) under consideration are
Healthcare, abortion, euthanasia
Crime and punishment
Social assistance programs
War and national security
Environmental protection
Groucho,
As a self proclaimed spiritually minded Christian why don't you give us your take on those questions you posed? I would be interseted in your take on the folliwing, first.
Why doesn't or wouldn't a spiritually minded Christian want a form of government that is different from a representative form of government?
After all, the Israelites didn't choose Moses to lead them, God did. Likewise when they murmurmed to have a king, they had no say as to who said king would be. Again, God chose.
Like wise, those spiritually minded Christians alive today are to subject themselves to a King. The Lord Jesus Christ. In the future, Christ will return to rule as King of kings and Lord of lords.... hardly representative. So, why shouldn't or wouldn't a spiritually minded Christian support a King and kingdom as the preferred form of rule?
Perhaps our being Americans, with no "king" tradition, has prevented us from seeing a Kingdom as a viable form of government?
I can't help but wonder how you would feel/what you would think if America's Christian King promoted heavy taxation so that no one would go hungry or homeless. No one would lack healthcare.
As a self proclaimed spiritually minded Christian why don't you give us your take on those questions you posed? I would be interseted in your take on the folliwing, first.
Why doesn't or wouldn't a spiritually minded Christian want a form of government that is different from a representative form of government?
After all, the Israelites didn't choose Moses to lead them, God did. Likewise when they murmurmed to have a king, they had no say as to who said king would be. Again, God chose.
Like wise, those spiritually minded Christians alive today are to subject themselves to a King. The Lord Jesus Christ. In the future, Christ will return to rule as King of kings and Lord of lords.... hardly representative. So, why shouldn't or wouldn't a spiritually minded Christian support a King and kingdom as the preferred form of rule?
Perhaps our being Americans, with no "king" tradition, has prevented us from seeing a Kingdom as a viable form of government?
Well...To state the obvious...Israelites were not Christians
As far as supporting a King and Kingdom as the preferred form of rule...That would be fine...but ONLY if Jesus is the king of it...don't trust anyone else to handle the job.
...and as far as my take on the questions that I asked...I believe that I've already answered them in my other posts regarding this subject....I was looking for YOUR criteria for what tax dollars should be spent on.
I suggest you read my first post in this thread. I don't think you quite got it.
This is not about spiritual authenticity/Christian basis for political theory. It's about whether one who considers him/herself a "spiritually minded Christian" would see the world through a more liberal or more conservative lens, politically speaking, AND the Scriptural evidence to support such a view.
I understand. But you kept bringing in this concept of certain areas in public life where government participation is supposedly scripturally prohibited from getting involved in. Providing for the poor, etc. And it is that that I wanted documented.
Overall, arguments from both sides of the political aisle have been given which endeavor to provide biblical backing as to why their side is more spiritual/Christian based. Arguments that exceed your debating abilities. And from people who believe 100% why theirs is true. And which provide Yet Another Reason for the need for the separation of church and state, as each group/church/religion wants their side to be represented in government policy and law, and will give no quarter to any other side, particularly those who don't believe the way they do.
Like wise, those spiritually minded Christians alive today are to subject themselves to a King. The Lord Jesus Christ. In the future, Christ will return to rule as King of kings and Lord of lords.... hardly representative. So, why shouldn't or wouldn't a spiritually minded Christian support a King and kingdom as the preferred form of rule?
Perhaps our being Americans, with no "king" tradition, has prevented us from seeing a Kingdom as a viable form of government?
Interesting. V-e-r-y interesting. (And quite revealing) <_< You speak of a spiritually minded Christian looking to be under a 'Kingdom' as the preferred form of rule, and yet, how many American Christians go on and on about how our country is a Christian one, and that our representative form of government is a Christian one (or is based on Christian principles).
Well, which is it? Which form of government is based on Christian/biblical principles? A democratically elected representative form of government, or a monarchy/kingdom form of government? (And no, a constitutional monarchy like the U.K. isn't what I'm referring to.) The two are distinct from each other, both in basis for authority, and in function.
Maybe you prefer a kingdom as a form of government here on earth, but there are a hell of a lot of other people (including many Christians I wager, 'spiritually minded' or not) who would feel otherwise, and would prefer a democratically elected representative form of government.
And you know, what you are posting here clearly illustrates Yet Another Big Reason why I walked away from the religious, 'spiritually minded' world. ... And I have no regrets at doing so either.
I'm glad I can help you clarify your point of view and the choices you've made thus far in life. I'll answer the question you posed
Well, which is it? Which form of government is based on Christian/biblical principles? A democratically elected representative form of government, or a monarchy/kingdom form of government? (And no, a constitutional monarchy like the U.K. isn't what I'm referring to.) The two are distinct from each other, both in basis for authority, and in function.
Well, I don't see anywhere in the Scriptures where the people chose their leaders. Jesus chose twelve and then lots were cast for the replacement. Jesus chose Saul. Some leaders in ACTS 5 were chosen by the other apostles. These are the only "choices" made, except for those chosen at local churches as bishops and presbytery with certain qualifications needing to be met. Certainly, none of these choices fall under what we would call a representative government.
The more I see the Scriptures the more I'm inclined to believe that a kingdom is, in fact, the more Scripturally supported. I haven't reached a final conclusion on this, it's something that has been brewing, though, for some time.
And you know, what you are posting here clearly illustrates Yet Another Big Reason why I walked away from the religious, 'spiritually minded' world. ... And I have no regrets at doing so either.
Maybe, Garth, the religious, "spiritually-minded" world walked away from you?
======
Groucho,
Well...To state the obvious...Israelites were not Christians wink2.gif
Not all of them, no, but many were.
Israel (physical) was always a picture or type of Israel Spiritual, which is, the Church. There are only two groups of people (Biblically speaking) those that believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Saviour of the world... and those that don't. Abel and Cain. Abel had faith. Faith is the gift of grace from God. Eph. 2:8
There is only one body of Christ in which is neither Jew nor Gentile but all one in Christ.
======
Dancing,
True.
====
Abigail,
I can't help but wonder how you would feel/what you would think if America's Christian King promoted heavy taxation so that no one would go hungry or homeless. No one would lack healthcare.
Good question. As I stated earlier in one of my posts. I pay my taxes. I would like to pay less taxes and I would like to see less government. If said king demanded such, then, I would pay my taxes.
Believe it or not, I'm not against the poor being fed or the sick being healed. I'm just not certain that the way we are going about it (or not) is the way it should be done. I'm also seeking Scriptural and spiritual enlightenment to base my beliefs on... which haven't been completely formed yet, and maybe never will.
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
markomalley
Danny,
Very good thoughts. Those of us who consider ourselves Christians should consider the words and the example of Jesus in our daily walk.
I would think that the state should set up systems that will encourage that behavior (thus I believe that the Christian representative would encourage charity work through the tax scheme).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Greek2me
Joey,
I disagree. As a collective, I'm sure the Church - with Christ as it's Head, and with submitted and obedient followers fulfilling their roles, could feed who they are meant to feed. To think anything else, would do it's Lord an injustice. After all, they've done it before. (Acts 5)I don't think the Church would (or should) be willing to take on the bloat that exists now from said governments.
No and No. I'm not suggesting a particluar mindset nor the forbidding of anyone doing anything. I'm suggesting the limiting of said programs by secular governments. As you stated, Jesus did not advocate a secular government doing what He told to His followers to do. Ok, neither did He forbid it.
Red Cross non-Christian? Perhaps not now, but where do you think they got their ideas from and that red cross symolizes what, if not the blood Christ shed on the cross?
Agreed. Concerning the Church. I said as much in other posts. I don't see the governments burden as needing to be as big as it does. Here's one reason why. I'm sure that with a little searching I could find more.When I lived in Brownsville, Texas a few years back, I worked as a substitue teacher in the BSD for a while. They have a program that feeds children breakfast, lunch and after-school snacks. Regardless of individual income or any other criteria, the State - through federally subsidized programs - feed 45,000 children three meals a day.
When the breakfast bags were brought to the rooms and untouched by a student - including milk cartons and fruit juices (who may or may not have eaten at home) - instead of being returned to be used again - were thrown away! When I asked the principal and others in the school as to why?... They said that the more breakfast in the bags and lunches they "served" the more money they got from federal subsidies. No body cared whether they were eaten or not.
What's more, many of those kids were children of illegal or "undocumented" guests.
This kind of practice is nonsense and should be stopped.
Danny brings up a valid point regarding stewardship. Surely, just stewardship applys not only to those involved in the government of the Church, but to secular governments as well.
====
Now, back to whether a spiritually-minded Christian would see things through a more liberal, or more conservative lens, politically.
I posted my take on taxes, no one else did. Wonder why?
Let me say this; that if you are a tax cheat and support liberal or conservative politics, you are not a spiritually minded Christian. Full stop. Exclamation point! If you think otherwise, you are mistaken.
I think one of the most telling things about the Bible and the relationship that Christians are to have with the secular world, is summed up in a few lines of Scripture.
1 Timothy 2:1-3
I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
Before anyone points out that this was addressed to Timothy, (and not to the Church) or to Christians as a whole, I would remind them that Timothy would fall under the category of a spiritually minded Christian.
=======
Concerning abortion. I, at one time, supported a womans right to chose. I no longer do. I think abortion is an extremely misunderstood subject in today's society. I see it as murder - plain and simple. Sure you can tell me about how it's not really a person yet; yada, yada, yada... but I would still consider it and you wrong.
This way of thinking took years for me to reach. It has been accompanied by years of prayer and seeking the face of the Lord. Scripturally, I can not point to one Scripture and say, "Thus saith the Lord," likewise, spiritually minded liberal Christians (if there is such a thing) can not point to a Scripture and say the opposite.
I see this subject more of an aggregate understanding of the mind of the Spirit. At least that's my take on the subject, if anyone sees it differently, by all means, let us hear it.
Any other subject like the military or environment
=====
Danny,
I don't read anywhere in the Scriptures that the world to come is going to be socialist. I see a Kingdom and a King of kings - hardly socialist.
Yes, Salvation is the gift of faith freely given by God's grace.
Eph 2:8-10
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Not of works, lest any man should boast.
For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
Proof of Salvation are the good works of faith.
One without the other, is no Salvation at all.
James 2:14-18
What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Greek,
You keep bringing up this claim of government being specifically forbidden from providing charitable provisions and other like support to its citizens as from a Godly/biblical standpoint. Can you clearly document/illustrate where this prohibition is shown in the scriptures? I too, when I was in TWI and in later years as a believer held to this view as well. It was just as time went on, I failed to see where in the Bible this was clearly illustrated/required. (Although now I have gotten beyond the "If it is Written in the Holy Writ, it must be Accepted as True" mentality.)
Oh, and I want to see the scriptures themselves where they clearly indicate this, please. Your interpretation alone doesn't suffice. Sorry.
Then again, a Kingdom and a King of kings is hardly democratic either (or of a republican form of government, for those here who get their panties in a knot over the word 'democratic'). As I heard someone once say "When Jesus comes back, will He hold elections?", clearly indicating that Jesus' government won't be of the representative form of government variety. Ie., no constitution.
Me? I'd rather go for the representative form of government with a solid wall between church and state, thank you very much. ... But that topic is another dollar for another day, I imagine.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Greek,
I am not sure that we agree on what constitutes a "spiritually-minded" Christian. What do you think makes a "spiritually-minded" Christian?
Edited by GoeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
I didn't say "socialist".
But I am intrigued by your reaction to the word "social".
Was Jesus' words wholly devoid of any "social" context, elements or concerns?
Certainly not with the fine material from James which you quoted.
I think it is absolutely remarkable that our "works" - as evidence or expression of
our salvation - constitutes of helping those in need, toward providing such earthly
necessities as food and clothes.
Danny
Edited by TheInvisibleDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
Greek2me
Garth,
It's not a TWI mindset - I was never in TWI. Clearly illustrating the forbiddance of taxation and what to do with said taxes for a secular government is not detailed in the Scriptures to my knowledge. The payment of said taxes, is. Likewise, clearly advocating said practice (taxation for a secular government) is not spelled out Scripturally. That is, what programs are to be implemetned and what programs are not to be implemented by a secular government.
If you think they are, why don't you clearly show Scriptural proof?
As far as the solid wall between church and State goes, it's interesting to note that you don't see how those more liberally minded use directives from it's Lord to the Church to support social programs. "Feed the poor," is not directed to a secular government. It was and is a directive of the Lord Jesus Christ to His followers.
Funny, when we adhere to it in a secular government, there's not a seperation of church and State issue... it's simply a good idea.
=======
Danny,
You're right. You didn't say socialist. Truly, the world to come will be "social." After all, we are speaking of a family, the basic social element of any society.
Yes, "our" works - as in those who believe, constitues the helping of those in need. I see that as a Christian's duty - not necessarily to be "outsourced" to a secular government. Any Christian walking with the Lord would certainly do no less than that described in James. To relegate such actions to a secular government and somehow relieve yourself of the personal responsibilty, is a cop out.
I just had this converstaion last night with one of my students. She is a dyed in the wool communist. She said she thinks we (the rich) should pay more taxes and feed all the poor (of the world.) She is also a very devout Greek orthodox. She thinks that any Christian would welcome taxes to go towards feeding the poor.
So, what's the kicker? She is also a teacher and does most of her work as a personal tutor. Much of her income goes unreported.
=========
Joey,
Perhaps you're right. I was wondering when someone would get around to noticing that that seems to be the crux of the issue. Just what does constitute a spiritually-minded Christian?
It's a huge issue, isn't it?
For starters, I would say a spiritually minded Christian is one who is submitted and obedient. One who is seeking to glorify the Lord. One who is part of a fellowship of others in similar state. One who is under a pastor and one who is in the process of emptying themself so that more of Christ can live in them.
I also think a spiritually minded Christian would want to know what is the mind of the Spirit. One who would wait on the Lord for marching orders and depend on the Lord to carry them out.
What do you think?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
The question that I would pose is, what IS a representaive form of government supposed to do with the tax money it collects?
A miltary for the defense of the nation?
Police to protect citizens from criminals within it's borders?
Fire department?
health care?
social securiy checks for the elderly?
research grants to better our way of life?
Street sweepers?
It would seem that any endeavor that a government would involve itself with (with our tax dollars) is designed to benefit the citizens of that country. Should these endeavors be limited to things that benefit the entire collective?...or should certain segments of society to be targeted also?...such as AIDS research or cancer research?....or even feeding the poor?
What is your criteria for what tax dollars should be spent on?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Greek2me,
But you see, chief, it is _you_ who are making the claim of scriptural authenticity/Christian basis for your political theory, not me. My challenge was just to have you document it. Me? I'm done trying to validate political truths/concepts from a 'does the bible say its OK' standpoint. If I didn't, maybe I'd have reason to still call for some of the (now outrageous) OT laws to still be on the books. So perhaps that fact that they don't require stoning for the punishment of crimes ranging from blasphemy to homosexuality to working on the Sabbath should actually put us all at ease, y'think? <_<
But seriously, it absolutely amazes me how many political concepts ('principles' according to some) people claim rigorously that are clearly straight from the scriptures, and yet when you actually look, whatever verses back up their Grande Principles are either scant and/or ripped right out of context, ... either that, or are concepts that have lloonngg been outdated (the stoning illustration I just gave, hmmmm?) And all that they have done with the kind of ((cough)) 'biblical research' ((HURL)) that would make VPW look good by comparison. Damn good!
I've seen this kind of dishonesty every which way but loose when it was/is claimed that America is based on Christianity and was/is supposed to be a Christian nation with Christian laws for Christian purposes; kind of a New Testament version of the Old Testament Isreal so to speak. One example of this is where they take the phrase 'nature's God' out of the Declaration of Independence, and try to extrapolate that, with all kinds of mental gymnastics to boot, as proof as to why it is the Christian God they are talking about. If they only realized what Thomas Jefferson's (the author of that document) Deistic beliefs were all about, they would freak. :o :blink:
And no Virginia, Deism is not another form of Christianity, not according to the orthodox definition in any event.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Greek2me
Garth,
I suggest you read my first post in this thread. I don't think you quite got it.
This is not about spiritual authenticity/Christian basis for political theory. It's about whether one who considers him/herself a "spiritually minded Christian" would see the world through a more liberal or more conservative lens, politically speaking, AND the Scriptural evidence to support such a view.
We've already looked at taxes. Or, I should say, I've already posted on taxes - no one else has had a go at it.
The other ideas, viewpoints, theories(?) under consideration are
Healthcare, abortion, euthanasia
Crime and punishment
Social assistance programs
War and national security
Environmental protection
Groucho,
As a self proclaimed spiritually minded Christian why don't you give us your take on those questions you posed? I would be interseted in your take on the folliwing, first.
Why doesn't or wouldn't a spiritually minded Christian want a form of government that is different from a representative form of government?
After all, the Israelites didn't choose Moses to lead them, God did. Likewise when they murmurmed to have a king, they had no say as to who said king would be. Again, God chose.
Like wise, those spiritually minded Christians alive today are to subject themselves to a King. The Lord Jesus Christ. In the future, Christ will return to rule as King of kings and Lord of lords.... hardly representative. So, why shouldn't or wouldn't a spiritually minded Christian support a King and kingdom as the preferred form of rule?
Perhaps our being Americans, with no "king" tradition, has prevented us from seeing a Kingdom as a viable form of government?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Greek,
I can't help but wonder how you would feel/what you would think if America's Christian King promoted heavy taxation so that no one would go hungry or homeless. No one would lack healthcare.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dancing
a christian can do non-christian things
a non-christian can do christian things
both from the heart
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
Well...To state the obvious...Israelites were not Christians
As far as supporting a King and Kingdom as the preferred form of rule...That would be fine...but ONLY if Jesus is the king of it...don't trust anyone else to handle the job.
...and as far as my take on the questions that I asked...I believe that I've already answered them in my other posts regarding this subject....I was looking for YOUR criteria for what tax dollars should be spent on.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Overall, arguments from both sides of the political aisle have been given which endeavor to provide biblical backing as to why their side is more spiritual/Christian based. Arguments that exceed your debating abilities. And from people who believe 100% why theirs is true. And which provide Yet Another Reason for the need for the separation of church and state, as each group/church/religion wants their side to be represented in government policy and law, and will give no quarter to any other side, particularly those who don't believe the way they do.
Interesting. V-e-r-y interesting. (And quite revealing) <_< You speak of a spiritually minded Christian looking to be under a 'Kingdom' as the preferred form of rule, and yet, how many American Christians go on and on about how our country is a Christian one, and that our representative form of government is a Christian one (or is based on Christian principles).
Well, which is it? Which form of government is based on Christian/biblical principles? A democratically elected representative form of government, or a monarchy/kingdom form of government? (And no, a constitutional monarchy like the U.K. isn't what I'm referring to.) The two are distinct from each other, both in basis for authority, and in function.
Maybe you prefer a kingdom as a form of government here on earth, but there are a hell of a lot of other people (including many Christians I wager, 'spiritually minded' or not) who would feel otherwise, and would prefer a democratically elected representative form of government.
And you know, what you are posting here clearly illustrates Yet Another Big Reason why I walked away from the religious, 'spiritually minded' world. ... And I have no regrets at doing so either.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Greek2me
Garth,
I'm glad I can help you clarify your point of view and the choices you've made thus far in life. I'll answer the question you posed
Well, I don't see anywhere in the Scriptures where the people chose their leaders. Jesus chose twelve and then lots were cast for the replacement. Jesus chose Saul. Some leaders in ACTS 5 were chosen by the other apostles. These are the only "choices" made, except for those chosen at local churches as bishops and presbytery with certain qualifications needing to be met. Certainly, none of these choices fall under what we would call a representative government.The more I see the Scriptures the more I'm inclined to believe that a kingdom is, in fact, the more Scripturally supported. I haven't reached a final conclusion on this, it's something that has been brewing, though, for some time.
Maybe, Garth, the religious, "spiritually-minded" world walked away from you?
======
Groucho,
Not all of them, no, but many were.Israel (physical) was always a picture or type of Israel Spiritual, which is, the Church. There are only two groups of people (Biblically speaking) those that believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Saviour of the world... and those that don't. Abel and Cain. Abel had faith. Faith is the gift of grace from God. Eph. 2:8
There is only one body of Christ in which is neither Jew nor Gentile but all one in Christ.
======
Dancing,
True.
====
Abigail,
Good question. As I stated earlier in one of my posts. I pay my taxes. I would like to pay less taxes and I would like to see less government. If said king demanded such, then, I would pay my taxes.
Believe it or not, I'm not against the poor being fed or the sick being healed. I'm just not certain that the way we are going about it (or not) is the way it should be done. I'm also seeking Scriptural and spiritual enlightenment to base my beliefs on... which haven't been completely formed yet, and maybe never will.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
((shrugs)) Whatever. ... Six of one, half dozen of the other. ... Basically they are still going their way, and I'm going mine.
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.