Page 1 of 1

Posted: Fri Oct 15, 2004 8:23 am
by BavarianWheels
PremoMD wrote:Senator Kerry just quoted at the presidential debate last night that "All of us are God's children." I humbly disagree with that statement on the basis of John 8:42-47. Verse 44 says, "You are of your father the devil and the lusts of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it." You can check out the rest as I wish not to fill up the entire forum screen but basically Jesus is commenting on how they are not God's children because they don't love Him (see vs. 42).

That's so true in America today. I feel so bad for the presidents as they try to appease the multitudes with programs and promises. If they understood the underlying nature of sin and that those who are not born again (transferring son-ship from the devil to God), they would be able to respond/react with so much more wisdom. President Bush wouldn't have to say "I don't know" to homosexuality as a choice but could boldly explain that men and women drink in iniquity like water (Job 15:16). They are slaves to sin and are in bondage to the lusts thereof. But when one is set free by Jesus Christ (see Isaiah 61:1-3) they are no longer a prisoner of sin. That's really what our nation needs - not freedom from terrorism or taxes or illegal immigrants or health care expenses, but freedom from poverty, spiritually speaking.
The problem with this is that religion shouldn't be mixed in with politics. Politics are, in nature, full of lies and deceit.

Show me one good politician and I'll show you one good liar.

While America is "one nation under God", and the Christian God at is still something government cannot push on the people (yet). If GWB really understood the Bible and followed it, he wouldn't be in Iraq trying to "make peace" because the Bible makes it clear that there will never be peace in that region of the world or really anywhere as while the time for Christ's return nears, there are more and more wars and rumors of wars... It is a political move and has nothing to do with his religious beliefs...well...I take that back. It may if he holds a dispensational view.

Posted: Fri Oct 15, 2004 6:16 pm
by Kurieuo
BavarianWheels wrote:The problem with this is that religion shouldn't be mixed in with politics. Politics are, in nature, full of lies and deceit.
Show me a polition who's been able to keep their "religious" beliefs out of politics, and I'll show you how they really haven't. ;) I think this is an idealistic view, but in reality noone is or can be impartial when it comes to their religious outlook.


Posted: Fri Oct 15, 2004 9:18 pm
by BavarianWheels
Kurieuo wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:The problem with this is that religion shouldn't be mixed in with politics. Politics are, in nature, full of lies and deceit.
Show me a polition who's been able to keep their "religious" beliefs out of politics, and I'll show you how they really haven't. ;) I think this is an idealistic view, but in reality noone is or can be impartial when it comes to their religious outlook.
...and I would agree as our religion (or lack thereof) makes up who we are and what moral code we follow. But we can see from the "beginning" when the Hebrews wanted a king...and God "reluctantly" gave them one. It was never meant that God's people would be involved in any "political" positions. We are told to render to Czar that which is Czar's...and to God what is God. It is God that puts men in authority and takes them out. (which is my own little reasoning to remain out of and all. It's just useless.) The church shouldn't be involved in politics or persuade people to vote one way or another. I've heard of some of the Calvary Chapel congregations that hold special meetings to discuss who they should vote for...I think that is outside the scope of what the church is for.

Posted: Fri Oct 15, 2004 11:39 pm
by Kurieuo
Although I disagree with your reasoning about not voting ;), I couldn't agree more with your last statement that the Church really shouldn't "persuading" people to vote one way or the other. Over here we just had an election and a Christian party started up which obtained some crucial votes. They had promised within some Churches that they wouldn't pass their votes onto another party, and then they did.

I think it appropriate for Christians to take an interest in political affairs, but I think it wrong for leaders to abuse their positions as though they know what is best for God. Rigid fundamentalist attitudes (although I don't like to use "fundamentalist" as it implies different things to different people) and politics don't really mix.


Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2004 3:58 am
by RGeeB
Politics and religion can be intergrated and made workable provided the right framework is in place. This is what I think is the acceptable order:

1) Theocracy, which I believe will be demonstrated by Jesus in the millenium reign - to show us perfect politics.

2) A collective of nominated elders, with a chief (like Moses)

3) A king, with counsellors (like David)

4) Democracy

Now, 2 and 3 will work if the ruler makes himself accountable to God - that will be very difficult in our present world - so, we get dictators like stalin, hitler, saddam etc.

Democracy - It assumes that an average person is in a position to judge what is good for the whole of his country - Would work if he is selfless and well educated. Its difficult for politicians because its impossible to please everybody at the same time.

If Christians can influence the democratic process on key issues and simultaneously pray for the leaders elected - Democracy could be on the right track.

Once we have elected our leaders, we should stop complaining about the decisions they make and the way they act - because we have given them the authority to do so on our behalf. I'm sure a lot of thought goes into making tough decisions like going to war and we should respect and appreciate them for doing tasks we cannot do.

If politics affects the world which God loves, then His church should not shirk away from their responsibility to influence.

Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2004 8:26 am
by Jac3510
I'm not sure if I agree or disagree with you, Bav. On one hand, I do not believe in a State Church, like the RCC was throughout the middle ages. Jesus said that His kingdom wasn't of this world, and the spiritual and political aspects of our lives are different things. The former should strongly affect the latter, but they are still not one and the same.

That said, I agree with C. S. Lewis when he said, "All Christians should not be statesmen, but all statesmen should be Christians." As he notes, Jesus didn't give us a political program for putting "Do unto others . . ." into action. He just said to do it, because He knew that in different cultures it would require different approaches.

Now, I'm one of those Christians who shouldn't be statesmen, but, I've been given the right to vote. I think of 2 Chron. 7:14, where I am told that if Christians would turn to God then He will heal their land. Part of turning to God and "turning from [our] wicked ways," is to stop voting for politicians that will absolutely push for immoral issues, i.e. gay marriage, abortion rights, affirmative action, etc. We shouldn't be putting a man into office who has no interest in what God thinks about our government!

As to your reference about God not wanting to give Israel a king, the reluctance wasn't because His people shouldn't be involved in politics. It was exactly the opposite. He knew that once they had a "traditional" governmental establishment, they'd abdicate their spiritual responsibility in the political realm. Moses knew this, too. In Deut. 17:14-20, God lays out several rules for how to set up the monarchy that will be coming. As you read that passage, you'll see that the king is supposed to be both a humble and spiritual man, totally committed to God. In other words, he was to be a committed Jew. Nowadays, our "kings" should be committed Christians. But, as history has it, God was right (big shock), and the people were looking for human leadership rather than divine leadership from their government, so their king became a secular king who gave lip service to God, something like our modern day politicians.

The solution? Christians, and the church in general, should be heavily involved in politics. We know the absolute truth on right and wrong. We have God's Word on the matter. These people can complain about our imposing our morality on them all that they want. I dealt with that on another post in the old forums. Of course they will hate it: they're unregenerate sinners! But, we are still called to turn from our wicked ways, which means we have to stop accepting these practices as OK. It can't go on in our lands . . . at least, we can't stand by and passively watch it happen.

BTW, somewhat off topic, RGeeB, I think (2) would be considered a Republic, wouldn't it? That's actually how the USA is set up . . . big misconception to say that we're a democracy.

Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2004 8:22 pm
by Mastermind
My view on the future: ... kefarm.png

That said, better start preparing for the Rapture.

Posted: Sun Dec 19, 2004 9:14 am
by SourceofLiFe
Anyone who actively practice sins and claim to be close to the Lord is a liar and deceiver.

Look into the bible, it offers a clear source of confirmation.

Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2004 4:44 pm
by Anonymous
There's a couple of issues I'd raise with theocracy or its equivalent as a method of governance:

Firstly, no matter how benign the religion, a system where only religiosity (I'm sure there's a better word) is praised tends to result in extremists. Hence the Taliban and the Inquisition (I'm prepared to go into more detail on why this should be so if anyone strongly disagrees). Democracies can still tend to extremism (hence Hitler) but the feedback loop between Joe Six-Pack and the top levels of government is stronger - note that Hitler didn't go really nuts til after he became Supreme Ultimate Dictator for Life, or whatever the title was. This theoretically keeps our leaders grounded.

Secondly, the concept of theocracy has no intrinsic means of determining who gets to make the day-to-day decisions of Government. If based entirely on religiosity, the leaders will tend to be very religious people, possibly very virtuous too, who can't necessarily tie their shoelaces. Say what you like about democracy, but the people we appoint do generally have a clue or can borrow one off the meritocratic (in theory at least) permanent government employees around them. A philosopher-king, in the style of Plato, would be too easy to take advantage of.

Which brings me to my third point: that the concept of having a purely religious leader is too easy to take advantage of. The prize will go not to the "best christian" but rather to the one who is seen as being the "best christian". In a worst case scenario, we appoint a Televangelist... This problem is compounded by the fact that, once someone with no religious tendencies manages to game the system, he is effectively God's voice and his word is very hard to challenge. For examples, look at the history of the Roman Catholic Popes (I can point out a couple if anyone is particularly interested).

We don't give that kind of trust to our secular leaders. Quite the reverse :)

Even without all those freedom of belief issues (remember, the Founding Fathers were doing their best to escape religious persecution - do we want to put more people through that?), I move that a theocratic government is not necessarily any more effective at helping people achieve salvation (religion is a personal issue - good Christians can't be mass-produced) and is far more prone to corruption and incompetence than even our democratic governments. In addition, having a non-infallible theocratic government is likely to put many people off - think how people love to gripe about the current administration. To conclude, I'd say that it's best for all concerned for state and church to keep their distance.

Any thoughts?

Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2004 4:56 pm
by Mastermind
Theocracy would not work mixed with democracy. Then again, I'm not particularly fond of democracy to begin with. A Theocratic Imperialist government on the other hand would probably benefit humanity much more. Not in the US, however, it would require a new nation. In fact, I think having exclusive countries for different religions would be much better, as those dissatisfied in their own country because of another's beliefs can simply go there. A government without democracy would be better because in a democracy, the person who can lie better is the one who usually wins. If there is no motivation to please the people through words, then a worthy leader can come into place. However, this system would have one disatvantage: if the leader sucks, the entire system falls apart. As a result, I propose a third "amendment", similar to some ancient governments, where the emperor is trained as such from birth. If the leader is taught true Christian doctrine, as well as trained into what he has to do(kind of like a mentat from Dune, if you've read the book), he(or she) would probably do a better job than the douches we have to elect today. Of course, democracy works because people think they are "free", and it is this illusion that keeps them peaceful and obedient.