jump to last post 1-21 of 21 discussions (127 posts)

Should Christians Be Involved In Secular Politics? Why??

  1. Ben Bush profile image55
    Ben Bushposted 9 years ago

    For those identifying themselves with Jesus Christ, the lure of Secular politics is constantly before them. In the name of their Savior, many are urged to participate. To not do so is considered sin by many. Is this right? And Why???

    What are the principles that should guide Christians when it comes to Secular Politics?

    1. profile image0
      sandra rinckposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      On a very serious note. 

      From what I had gathered, Christians should be staying away from politics and focusing thier energy on the people around them.  Of course in politics in theory, with as many Christians as there are in the wold, you guys could really make it a better place.  Unfortunately,  they either don't have the means to help those around them and are practically forced to participate, or two they are just faulty christians.

      Now from the many post I make regarding Christians, it's not that I dislike you'll, it's more that I could see some serious potential in making the world a better place but reality would have it that, in the spiritual realm Satan rules the roost and in almost everyway, he has got the upper hand on essentially forcing opposition or oppression on everyone.

      Sort of like the invisible hand in the economy.  I would think that if all the Christians got together and put aside their differences, and became doers for thier communities, instead of oppressors of thier communites...by oppressors, I mean focusing more on converting people instead of just helping, the outcome could be different. 

      Anyways,  I think the pricipal is rather simple when it comes to Christianity.  That you should be on neutral grounds when it comes to politics.

      1. Ben Bush profile image55
        Ben Bushposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        Sandra,

        Thanks for responding.

        Do you think the Bible backs you up? If so, what does it say?

        1. profile image0
          sandra rinckposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          Participating in politics is having a hand in judgment.

          While you could say, you are not judging, voting for or againts the death penalty etc... is judgment and you have a hand in that. 

          When you become neutral to those things then what happens to those people is not on you.  Certainly you could also say, I voted againts it, but who is to say they didn't deserve it right?  So Jesus said: let the unrightous go on being unrightous and let the rightous go on being rightous. 

          I personally couldn't decide either way cause I don't know and I could never say I know what was going on in a persons head to get them to do such horrible things. 

          Like this election.  I wont vote because I don't want any of that to fall on me.  I don't view evil and lesser evil as better than then other, similarly Jesus did not consider one sin worse or better than the other.

          Part of me wants to vote just so Palin never gets into office, but I can't vote for Obama because I feel like he also has a hidden agenda. 

          In hindsight,  I wish I would have voted in the pre-election for Clinton but I was afraid that she would end up being "the prophetess" only come to find Palin.  So..."oppression" in this case is not having a real choice.  It is chosing one evil over the other evil. 

          So according to the Bible, judgment is God's territory and I do believe in "Karma".  Or God will give them what is coming to them and I don't need to do anything because while I still chose that people are "good" and are forced or made to believe or do bad things, God will take care of it. 

          Yes, I do believe that God is love and God loves everyone regardless and see us the way I see us, which is innocent and no one will burn in some eternal fire pit.  But as far as being in this life and the way that it is, things have to be done, but not by us.

          Take Sadom and Gomorah (yes I am sure I spelled it wrong whateva!) No one had to do anything.  When God gets pissed enough he makes earthquakes and stuff.  God doesn't force people to kill since he said don't kill.  And no I don't believe that because a massive disaster happened that it was because they were doing wrong or they deserved it, it just is that way. 

          I mean, maybe God was like ok those ones are bad so I am gonna snuff them out, and at the same time he is like well that one is good, let me take that one up so he/she doesn't have to suffer.  I don't really know why  things are the way that they are and I certainly do not buy the story of Adam and Eve as the reason we die. 

          I just don't.  It doesn't make sense.  smile  All I know is things are the way that they are. 



          Do you get what I am saying?

          1. Jeromeo profile image61
            Jeromeoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Satan is the Ruler of this system of things.  The political system is a design of Satan's.  God allows the governmental system to exist just like he allows Satan to exist. Jesus set the standard while on trial in front of Potius Pilat, when he said "MY Kingdom is no part of this world.

            Individuals who follow Christ, do not support earthly governments, nor the people who run for office.  They do however, obey all laws set up and enforced by earthly governments, unless they go against God's law.

            True followers of Christ do not participate in war.  the do not join the Armed Forces, the Bible speaks for God, and it says "Thou Shalt Not Kill".  So joining the Armed Services and either supporting the efforts of war or participating directly is against God's law.

            Electing people into office who declare war is the same as supporting war. Followers of Christ are politically neutral.

            1. profile image0
              Poppa Bluesposted 9 years agoin reply to this

              Actually I believe the more precise translation of the original text is "Thou shalt not murder". A subtle distinction but a distinction none the less.

              1. profile image0
                sandra rinckposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                what do you think war is?

                1. profile image0
                  Poppa Bluesposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  Well that depends. Wars are fought for many reasons. Can there not be a righteous reason for going to war? Remember when the bible was written and then you can put that commandant in it's proper context.

                  1. Ben Bush profile image55
                    Ben Bushposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                    Regardless of you view on the kill/murder distinction, all amed service personnel are still required to disobey a command of Christ regarding an oath.

                  2. profile image0
                    sandra rinckposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                    No!  I do not under any circumstances believe war is right. I will never believe it is right. 

                    There is no rightousness attached with war.  Mass murder, no, no, no. 
                    War are fought because one says ya and the other says na. 
                    One says we must go to war to defend ourselves so these people do not kill the ones we love. 
                    On the other hand, you don't take into account that you are going to kill the ones they love too.

                    It is never ever and was never right.  sad

                  3. profile image0
                    Poppa Bluesposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                    Well I didn't actually say that, though I can see why one would think that I did. The point I was trying to make is Roosevelt dragged America into the war against the will of the people. The mass killings of Jews was known at the time and perhaps was one of his considerations when he provoked Germany into an attack on our ships.

              2. Misha profile image75
                Mishaposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                To be more precise - you don't like it wink
                Me, too, though...
                I already posted this link on these forums, but can't really resist to doing this again - I just love this song http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgpRzFUd4io

      2. profile image0
        sandra rinckposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        Hey Jeromeo, good to have you back on hp.  I am going to guess that Ben would like some references to back up what you say because evidentally, nothing can be said to persaud him that a true christain shouldn't partipate in the affairs of  politics. 

        smile

        1. Ben Bush profile image55
          Ben Bushposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          Sandra, What have I said that gave you that idea?

        2. Jeromeo profile image61
          Jeromeoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          The account of Jesus taking a stand for God's righteous kingdom can be found in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John


          The Kingdom—Is It Real to You? ***

          12 Jesus did not answer Pilate’s question directly, but replied: Luke 23:13

          “My kingdom is no part of the world. If my kingdom were part of this world, my attendants would have fought that I should not be delivered up to the Jews. But, as it is, my kingdom is not from this source.”

          Notice that in Jesus’ short reply he mentioned the Kingdom three times. This brought Pilate and all those listening back to the theme of the Kingdom government, as Pilate then said: “Well, then, are you a king?” (John 18:36, 37) The scene was firmly set on that dramatic stage, and no one would be able to overlook the reason for Christ’s being on trial. Notice the sequence of events. Jesus responded and said:

          “You yourself are saying that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone that is on the side of the truth listens to my voice.”—John 18:37.

  • Ben Bush profile image55
    Ben Bushposted 9 years agoin reply to this

    If you're going to conclude that Christians should not, in theory, take part in politics, that's fine. But for the  genuiine Christina, it must be based on more than that. It must be a position which can be demonstrateed from the Bible. Because, regardless of any good motive a Christian may have, the word of God takes priority. This doesn't mean that a Christina can't help people, he must simply do it within the framework revealed in the Christian's handbook.

    The issue of converting people has more weight in it than you may know.

  • profile image0
    daflaposted 9 years agoin reply to this

    Since there is a separation of church and state, at least in the U.S., there are no Christian politics, so ...what was the question again?

  • Paraglider profile image89
    Paragliderposted 9 years ago

    I would say that apathy towards politics is the greatest harm. When people are apathetic, it allows 'undesirables' to take over the seats of power. By undesirables, I mean those who would line their own pockets or pursue vendettas against cultural, ethnic or religious groups, and other such abuses of public trust.

    JFK was a Christian who tried to do his best for the country. But he didn't promote his own brand of Christianity (Catholicism) or denigrate anyone else's. So it shouldn't be a problem.

    What matters is that a politician focuses on the people's needs and immediate and coming problems, and does not pursue a personal agenda.

    1. Ben Bush profile image55
      Ben Bushposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I agree that apathy towards politics is a detriment.

      However, is apathy the primary concern for a Christian or obeying the Christ a person professes to follow?

      Abd if obedience  is the primary concern, does that apply to politics?

      Or are Christians allowed to forego anything Christ may say in order to pursue political power and its use for "God".

      1. Paraglider profile image89
        Paragliderposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        In a country where politicians are elected, what matters is that you say what you stand for & what you intend to do. If folk then elect you and don't like it, that's their lookout, till the next election. In that respect Christians are no different from triathletes.

  • profile image0
    Poppa Bluesposted 9 years ago

    Everyone that can be involved should be, Christians are no different. The problem for Christians is how to get involved without having to perform their duty as Christians and promote their faith. The principles that should guide them is to respect the God given inalienable rights of all people to exercise their free will, faith and forgiveness and to speak out against those that would attack those rights given to all of us by God.

    1. Ben Bush profile image55
      Ben Bushposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      If being involved in politics means that one cannot live their life as Christ commands, what good is Christ to them. What does "following Him" mean if you can't do what He says?

      1. profile image0
        Poppa Bluesposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        I don't understand what you mean. Of course you can live your life as Christ commands! You simply have to remember that living YOUR life is different than telling someone else how they should live THEIR life. By all means live you life as you see fit, spread the word if you must, and by all means vote, run for office even, just remember you can not use that office to force your beliefs on others.

        1. Ben Bush profile image55
          Ben Bushposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          Do you realize that, in order to enter public office, a Christian must disobey a direct command of Jesus Christ?

          1. profile image0
            Poppa Bluesposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Well I didn't know that. Is that a fact or your interpretation of something in the bible? Jesus himself was something of a politician, no? Well in any case, if that is what you believe and you wish to follow the word of Jesus I guess you can't run for office. Though I find it hard to believe that Jesus or God would issue such a proclamation.

            1. Ben Bush profile image55
              Ben Bushposted 9 years agoin reply to this

              I didn't say that Jesus issue the command, "thou shalt not run for public office" or something similar. It's just that you can't enter public office without violating one of his commands.

              1. profile image0
                Poppa Bluesposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                Really? Which one?

                1. Ben Bush profile image55
                  Ben Bushposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  Matthew 5:34, "But I say unto you, Swear not at all

  • knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 9 years ago

    To be flippant: if it is true that it was christians that enabled bush to win the last two elections, and if it is true
    that bush has about destroyed america, then it should be
    obvious that christians shouldn't be allowed to vote.

    1. profile image0
      Poppa Bluesposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Either one of those assumptions can be argued to be false.

  • knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 9 years ago

    Be my guest.

  • profile image0
    sandra rinckposted 9 years ago

    I guess I rambled on about what the bible says about politics for no reason.  I guess to see something for what it is and ignoring it is better than admitting to it. 

    Oh well.  smile

    1. Ben Bush profile image55
      Ben Bushposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Rambling may be in the eye of the reader. Whether it was rambling or not, you did not do it for no reason.

      I agree with some of your points. I disagree with others. I'll wait till you expand on one or two before I comment.smile

      1. profile image0
        sandra rinckposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        which ones would that be???

  • profile image0
    Poppa Bluesposted 9 years ago

    Matthew 5:34, "But I say unto you, Swear not at all

    Okay, but what did they mean by swear? Keep in mind one has to not only consider the context in which the word is used but one must also consider when that was written and the fact that it was translated from the original Aramaic.

    Try to use common sense, why would God not want anyone to participate in politics? Do you really think there are no politics involved in choosing the pope?

    1. Ben Bush profile image55
      Ben Bushposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Are you implying that Jesus doesn't have or use common sense?  Would it not be wise to presume the opposite, that maybe Jesus has a legitimate reason for making the statement. And besides, the context Jesus is using is the OT scripture dealing with swearing by the Lord and the duty one has to perform those oaths.

      And who says the Jesus doesn't want "anyone' to participate in politics?

      Your example of the Pope is interesting. There is a government hardly anyone understands. Papal politics is Secular???   or    Non Secular?????

      1. profile image0
        Poppa Bluesposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        No I was implying that you weren't using common sense in concluding that christians can't participate in politics because it is against their beliefs!

        1. Ben Bush profile image55
          Ben Bushposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          So, a Christian is free to ignore a clear command of Christ? On what would you base such a conclusion? And please don't say common sense.smile

          1. profile image0
            Poppa Bluesposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Dude!!!! That's not what I said!!!  Go back and read the thread again and stop putting words in my mouth.

            1. Ben Bush profile image55
              Ben Bushposted 9 years agoin reply to this

              Dude! You're free to put it clearly youself. Don't rely on my common sense.smile

    2. Mark Knowles profile image61
      Mark Knowlesposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Because politicians have consistently proven themselves to be lying scumbags?

      If I was god, I would have prohibited any religious leaders from participating in politics.

      The pope is just the "democratically" elected head of the Catholic party any way smile

      Can't believe I am arguing on the side of a christian lol

      1. Ben Bush profile image55
        Ben Bushposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        I'm sure you do so with a clear conscience.tongue

  • knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 9 years ago

    The II word war against the fascist germans, italians and japaneses was almost certainly a necessary war. War is justified against theives and murderers. The problem is that
    more often than not these days, theives and murderers are considered the good guys.

    1. Ben Bush profile image55
      Ben Bushposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Why do you think that is, especially in the realm of Secular politics?

  • knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 9 years ago

    Faith and politics are incompatible.

    1. Ben Bush profile image55
      Ben Bushposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Explain please.smile

  • profile image0
    sandra rinckposted 9 years ago

    What do you think politics is?

    1. profile image0
      Poppa Bluesposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      It's compromise.

      1. profile image0
        sandra rinckposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        Politics is an agenda to "get",  manipulation, lying, hidden truths to acheive thier (not our) thier desired outcome. 

        Religion does the same thing.  manipulation, lying, hidden truths to achieve thier (not our) thier desired outcome.

        do you see a compromise here?

        1. profile image0
          Poppa Bluesposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          Yes I do. I understand, it's easy to be cynical. It's certainly much easier to be critical then to be correct. Yes, I'm sure that politicians also consider their careers when making deals on behalf of their constituents. And yes to some degree it's important to control the masses and maintain order, but I would argue that is something we all desire, no? Anytime one is given the task to represent and lead the many, there are going to be those that are unhappy. Given the amount of people whose interests our representatives must advance, there's no way they can do an adequate job. Consequently they represent those with the loudest voice, or to put it another way, those with the most money. Interestingly though, here in America incumbents are almost always re-elected. Why do you suppose that is? Obviously the majority is satisfied with their performance. Oddly Congress's approval ratings are the lowest in history. Go figure!

  • knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 9 years ago

    Poppa Blues: You seem like a good guy to take on an incumbent. Can you see any way that you could ever do it, assuming you were so inclined.

    1. profile image0
      Poppa Bluesposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Oh Yes! I'd be happy to try! Of course with all the bad things I've done in my life, I'm sure I'd have a hard time being successful! Also, I'm not too good at politics. I tend to show my hand too early! I'm currently on a board of directors for a home owners association and it's quite interesting, because it mirrors government in so many ways. There we're only dealing with a small number of people and still some people are never happy, some think everything should be done for them and others would rather do things for themselves and pay less. It all depends on their political philosophy, democrat or republican! LOL!

  • knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 9 years ago

    "Politics is by its very nature religious" Only where the regent claims their authority for rulership as from god, like the pope.

    1. Ben Bush profile image55
      Ben Bushposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      The pope is a secular ruler.

      1. Ben Bush profile image55
        Ben Bushposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        That's what I thought!

        Not many are aware that the Roman Catholic Church is a legally recognized state, complete with Ambassadors and other official government representatives in many nations of the world.

        1. Mark Knowles profile image61
          Mark Knowlesposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          That hardly qualifies it as secular.

          And any way, The Vatican is the state and it is a separate entity from the Roman Catholic Church.

          1. Ben Bush profile image55
            Ben Bushposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            That's what one would think, but the reality is different.

            Just prior to the last Iraq war, there was an MP from Fort Hood (Texas) who had applied for Concientious Objector Status and was denied. He then went AWOL. Guess where he went? To a Catholic Church. The military couldn't touch him as long as he was on Church property. The same thing happened to Manuel Noriega in Panama. He fled the American military into a Catholic Church. Once again the Americans had to stop. He later came out under some type of agreement and, at one time, was America's lone official POW.

            1. Mark Knowles profile image61
              Mark Knowlesposted 9 years agoin reply to this

              I had never heard that - but I don't think that has anything to do with the Catholic Church claiming diplomatic immunity for the MP in question.

              None of which addresses the question of the Holy See being a secular state, nor whether the Vatican is a separate entity to the Catholic Church.

              IGNORANT INDIANS NOTWITHSTANDING lol

              1. Ben Bush profile image55
                Ben Bushposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                It's not just diplomatic immunity. It's actually Foreign Sovereign Immunity. Their property is foreign soil to the US.

                The Indians are not alone.smile

                1. Ben Bush profile image55
                  Ben Bushposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  An Addendum,  RCC property is foreign to the US to the extent that the RCC retains their consent. Rights can be waived!

                  1. profile image0
                    sandra rinckposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                    That is not only scary, that makes me want to barf.  Ben can you explain just a little more, now you got me interested. 

                    What are you saying?  yikes

                2. Mark Knowles profile image61
                  Mark Knowlesposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  That's for sure.

                  I was not aware that Catholic Church property counted as foreign sovreign territory. I will have to look into that.

                  I imagine the New York crack dealers will be keen to discover this.

                  I could make a fortune........

                  1. Ben Bush profile image55
                    Ben Bushposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                    Remember, official RCC policy is equivocation and casuistry.

  • VENUGOPAL SIVAGNA profile image58
    VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 9 years ago

    I CANNOT EVEN IMAGINE THAT VATICAN IS A SEPARATE ENTITY. TILL NOW I AM THINKING THAT IT IS THE HEADQUARTERS OF ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCHES. SECULAR IS LIKE UMPIRING BETWEEN RELIGIONS. IT IS ACCEPTING ALL RELIGIONS WITHOUT PURSUING ANY RELIGION.  LET IT BE THE CAPITAL OF CHRISTIANITY REQUEST ALL TO EXPLAIN IT THE OTHER WAY.  CHRISTIANITY WILL UPHOLD ITS GRANDEUR AS LONG AS VATICAN IS THE HOUSE OF CHRISTIAN LEADERSHIP, THE POPE.  (V.SIVAGNANAM, sivagnanambcom54@gmail.com)

    1. Ben Bush profile image55
      Ben Bushposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      The political message and policies of the RCC differs greatly from the message and policies brought by the Apostle Thomas, who was martyred in India.

  • knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 9 years ago

    "There we're only dealing with a small number of people and still some people are never happy, some think everything should be done for them and others would rather do things for themselves and pay less. It all depends on their political philosophy, democrat or republican!" Am curious: I would guess the repubs want everything done for them. Is that correct?

    1. profile image0
      Poppa Bluesposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      LOL! No you'd be guessing wrong! The basic philosophy of a democrat is for government to be the protector, the great equalizer, the champion of solving the problems of the people. Their intentions are good but the effect of those intentions is to change the way people behave in unexpected ways. Take taxes for example. The democrats want to increase taxes on the rich. Well for most of us poor people, at first glance we are going to say great! Tax those rich people! They can afford it! Yes of course it's true the rich can afford to pay more, but is it fair? And what are the unintended effects of the higher taxes on the rich?

      First, taxes in general are in a way an assault on freedom, since every dollar taken form the people is a decision made for them on how to spend their money, so taxes in general are unfair. Look how people behave when they file their tax returns. Don't you and everyone else you know look for ways to minimize your tax burden? The rich have many more ways available to them to do this. Generally the rich are business owners and investors. Raising the taxes on businesses will only be passed on in the prices of goods, so we (us poor people) end up paying the higher taxes anyway. In addition the increased costs tend to suppress hiring so we (us poor people) pay again because less jobs are available.

      That's just one example, but you only have to look at the things the government already does for us (or is supposed to do for us) and ask yourself, what does it do well? Almost nothing! Look at Iraq, a total mistake that's going to cost us a trillion dollars or more! Look at Katrina, Rita, and now Ike, Look at our roads and bridges. Look at our financial system. Social security, health care. Just about everything the government gets involved in is messed up!

      Take the energy problem. The candidates want to promote alternative energy. but one candidate want to do this by taxing the oil companies. This tax will simply be passed on to the consumer so we will pay and we'll pay again to support new technologies with the tax incentives this candidates wants to give to these new companies. It all sounds good on paper but it does nothing to reduce the demand on oil which everyone on both sides says is the real problem. Both candidates want to lower the price of gas, but free markets operate on supply and demand. The USA is 5% of the world population yet we use 25% of the oil produced in the world! What really need to be done is to have the courage to take the necessary steps of raising the price of gas so that we use less. Ultimately the price of gas will come down when we use less. This has already happened to some degree but much more need to be done.

  • Mark Knowles profile image61
    Mark Knowlesposted 9 years ago

    Well, you can't provide for one and not the others, so if that is the case, I can understand why they feel discriminated against. I think prayer is best kept away from schools for just this reason.

    Although, I don't see how any of them need space to do it. I would have thought any old piece of dirt was as good as another.

    Of course, as an atheist, I would require a bar room full of brazen hussies, some good bourbon and a decent blues band to be able to perform the required abasement before my god lol

    1. profile image0
      Poppa Bluesposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      LOL! I think we belong to the same church!

  • VENUGOPAL SIVAGNA profile image58
    VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 9 years ago

    MANY PEOPLE ARE IGNORANT ABOUT INDIA, ITS CULTURE, ITS HERITAGE, ITS CIVILIZATION AND POLITICS.  MAY BE SOME INDIANS ARE IGNORANT ABOUT VATICAN AND RCC.  MORE IGNORANT ARE THOSE WHO THINK ABOUT THEMSELVES AND SATISFY THEMSELVES WITH THEIR IDEOLOGY. THE HOME OF HINDUISM, THE OLDEST RELIGION IS INDIA.  INTERPRETATIONS OF DIFFERENT KINDS WILL NOT SPEAK THE TRUTH.  RESPECTING OTHER RELIGIONS IS THE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF CIVILISATION.

    1. profile image0
      sandra rinckposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      what does this have to do with Christains and secular governement?  I will assume that your computer is broken and that is why you keep posting in caps.  And yes, respecting other peoples religins and basic principals in thier own civilizations is good.  So chill out.  smile

  • Misha profile image75
    Mishaposted 9 years ago

    You don't publish your email anymore. Good! Now, if you stop using ALL CAPS somebody will actually try to read what you write, and even might try to answer smile

  • Ben Bush profile image55
    Ben Bushposted 9 years ago

    So, the Bible says that genuine Christians are not supposed to be directly involved in Secular Politics.

    Yet, it's a fact that all things are political.

    What's a genuine Christian to do in response to this fact?

    1. profile image0
      sandra rinckposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I don't know Ben, what would you like to do?  You seem to fancy yourself as a genuine Christain.  Ten bucks says that another Genuine Christain would tell you, you are wrong.  smile

      It is all politics, religion has no place in it because it's not a religion, it's a race for world domination.  I think God would be pretty pissed off.

      1. Ben Bush profile image55
        Ben Bushposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        Sandra, why would I desire to part with ten bucks?

        Politics is inherently religious, Religion is inherently political. World domination? And God id silent on the issue?

        1. profile image0
          sandra rinckposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          10 bucks was a joke.  Tell yourself anything you want to, if you think you have the right answer that aint gonna hurt no one then do it.  And yes, apperently God is silent cause if you could hear him, then you wouldn't be here wondering if you are the only Genuine Christain.  smile

          1. Ben Bush profile image55
            Ben Bushposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Sandra,

            My response to ten bucks was a joke!smile

            The voice of God is audible in every bit of Truth. And I am not wondering if I am the only genuine Christian. Mark is the next available candidate for genuine conversion.roll

            Don't worry, the answer(s) will come.

            1. profile image0
              sandra rinckposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                They already did, some just don't listen.  wink

    2. Mark Knowles profile image61
      Mark Knowlesposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I don't think it is a fact that all things are political, at least as I understand the word "fact." But a genuine christian should stand up, proclaim the system corrupt and die for his beliefs. big_smile

      That is what the only genuine christian I have ever heard of did.......

      1. Ben Bush profile image55
        Ben Bushposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        Can you name one area of you life that is not covered or addressed by law(s)?

        Jesus proclaimed the system corrupt? What system? I thought Jesus said to render unto Caesar the things that are Caear's and to God the things that are God's.

        1. Mark Knowles profile image61
          Mark Knowlesposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          Jesus (if he existed) said a lot of things. smile My reading, and I am hampered by refusing to quote the good bok, is that he railed against the system, both political and religious. And died for his beliefs.

          Rendering unto Caesar and god - to me - means the two should be kept apart.

          Christians seem to concern themselves too much with controlling, dominating, converting for my taste. lol

          Laws. There seem to be new laws written every five minutes. And once you have written a law on a subject, it seems to me, you must always keep writing more laws.

          Laws. There are different sorts of laws. Some I obey - purely because I have no choice in the matter. Some I obey because they make sense to me. Some I ignore. At my own peril.....

          1. Ben Bush profile image55
            Ben Bushposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Jesus never railed against Caesar's system. In fact , the religious leaders tried to trick Him into saying anything against Caesar, but He never did. He did, however, say alot which the religious leaders weren't pleased with, especially when he pointed out their Hypocrisy.

            You're right. Christains are concerned about areas which scripture forbids them to engage in. That's why they are so frustrated becasue they can't get the desired results.

            All those laws which cover every area of life are promulgated by politicians, most of which are lawyers. And then there is the oxymoron of oxymorons; a "Christian Lawyer."

    3. profile image0
      Poppa Bluesposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      ou already know what you should do!!! Pray for guidance, God will show you the way!

      1. Ben Bush profile image55
        Ben Bushposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        Is it possible that God has already revealed, at least, a part of the way?

        1. profile image0
          Poppa Bluesposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          Well not to me He hasn't and apparently not to you either otherwise you wouldn't be asking the question!

          1. Ben Bush profile image55
            Ben Bushposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Are questions always a sign of ignorance?

            The fact is that He has shown the manner in which His People are to conduct their affairs in life.

            1. profile image0
              sandra rinckposted 9 years agoin reply to this

              Asking question is wise.  Never stop asking.  When one seeks, let him find, when one finds, one will be troubled...No one seeks God, not one, the path to peace is paved in destruction, little did they know that on the path to peace, there never was any fear of God. 

              What a yummy parable.  smile

  • funwithtrains profile image59
    funwithtrainsposted 9 years ago

    Pardon me for coming late to the discussion, but it does interest me.

    Many parts of the Bible are open to multiple interpretations.  Might I suggest that the section about oaths might also be interpreted as in the commentaries about midway down the page here:  http://bible.cc/matthew/5-34.htm  (I have no interest in this site, just found it).

    I don't believe Christians are forbidden from participating in politics  -- we're not required to withdraw from the secular world.  However, as some have mentioned, it might be hard to stay involved (or win elections) while upholding all Christian beliefs.

    And, I don't think "Christian Lawyer" is an oxymoron.  There are lots of different types of lawyers.  Some lawyers help families adopt children, protect the innocent, facilitate good business, and help churches and other non-profits.  In fact, you could say that Jesus functions as a lawyer in that he is called "Wonderful Counselor" and is an advocate for our souls against Satan.

    Just my thoughts . . .

    1. Ben Bush profile image55
      Ben Bushposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks for joining in. As they say.......better late than never.smile

      While many would agree that the Bible is open to many interpretations, the Bible is not one of them. Peter informs us that the Scripture is not open to any "private interpretation." (2 Peter 1:20)

      With that said, Jesus didn't say, Swear not at all, except for oaths in judicial proceedings." The statement "swear not at all" is very clear and all encompassing. It leaves nothing open for discussion. Of course, many explain away and rationalize, as does the link you give. Plus the examples of oaths by Paul cited in this link and by others are not examples of oaths at all. They are simply solem declarations made, usually calling on God to witness their statement, but in no way are these oaths.

      The root word of Attorney is "Attorn" which means "to turn or transfer homage from one lord to another." Websters 1828 Original edition.

      Jesus only words about lawyers was a stern warning to them, "Woe unto you lawyers! for you have taken away the key of knowledge; you entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering you hindered." (Luke 11:52) And these were his kind words to them.

      I know an non practicing attorney in here in Texas. This attorney keeps her bar card current for much easier access to legal research material. She said that if she were to practice law as she "knows" the law to be, she would be immediately disbarred.

      I know a another man who was conducting his own federal case. The court tried to force him to take an attorney. So he kept putting in his paperwork and had the attorney sign it. This attroney was called into court by the judge of the case. He was asked if he knew what organization he was a member of. The judge told him that the arguments of law in the paperwork did not represent that of the organization this lawyer was a member of. The judge also said that if a change wasn't made immediately, the attorney would lose his license to practice law.

      My personal experience in court has revealed that attoneys and judges are usually not interested in ruling according to the law as it is written. They proceed with predetermined outcomes according to their own agenda. The same is true for Christian lawyers. Only Christian lawyers may be even more ignorant, though some of the top ones are not. They know exactly what they are doing and would receive the same stern warning from Jesus today.

      Yes Jesus is our advocate to The Father, but is according to Truth, not subversion.

      You're right. We are not to withdraw from the secular world, but we are not to join it either. We do have a duty to proclaim the Good News Of Jesus Christ as Ambassadors. An Ambassador represents the interests of one nation to another nation. He doesn't go join the other nation.

      As far as politics in this nation, President Bush has been forthright about what the religious right is to Him and the Republicans, nothing more than "political capital" to be expended as they see fit. Obviously, somebody hasn't been listening because the religious right has accomplished nothing and never will.

      The bottom line is that we have been persuaded that the Scripture says something it does not say. A little deciated study will reveal this. The Truth found by such an endeavor is very peaceful. Don't be afraid of it.smile

      1. funwithtrains profile image59
        funwithtrainsposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        Sorry for the delay in replying.  As for interpretation, we may just have to disagree a bit.  To some extent any translation from the original is an interpretation, and any time we use context to understand a verse -- even understanding who a pronoun ("he") refers to -- you could call that interpretation.  I believe that is different from what the verse you quote is speaking to -- creating your own personal religion.  Yes, that's my interpretation, and where to draw the line is why we have many different denominations of the church.

        Sounds like you've had some bad experiences with attorneys, but I don't think that justifies condemning them all.  As with most professions, there are good and bad ones, but the bad ones get the most attention.  There are many decent trial attorneys, and as I mentioned, there are many other types of attorneys (not just trial attorneys or judges) doing different kinds of work.  The worst 1% of attorneys gets 99% of the press coverage.

        Back to your initial question:  assuming for the sake of argument (though I disagree) that you are right about "oaths", does the more recent trend of asking someone "Do you solemnly swear, or affirm" and leaving off reference to God at the end then make that acceptable to you?  Seems like if you only solemnly affirm, you might avoid your concern altogether.

        1. Ben Bush profile image55
          Ben Bushposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          I'm not sure that there's much disagreement about interpretation between us. I'm simply saying that when you have two very different interpretations, at least one of those interpretations is wrong. And maybe both are wrong.

          In no way am I saying that interpreting the Bible is wrong. I am saying that multiple interpretations are not possible when the interpretations are diametrically opposed to one another.

          In this case, the interpretation deals with oaths. If you'll return to Matthew 5, you see the following, ".....do not swear at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne....." In Matthew 23:22, Jesus says, "And he that shall swear by heaven, swears by the throne of God, and by Him that sitteth on it." This obviously refers to God, thus the command to not swear at all at least refers to not swearing by God.

          The issue of affirming is also addressed by Scripture. An affirmation is simply a solemn statement. However, a solemn statement is not the only thing that takes place. In the oath or affirmation of office, the officeholder is swearing or affirming that he or she will take certain actions while holding office, "protect and defend the Constitution and all laws thereunder."

          James deals with this issue in Chapter 4:13, ....you that say, Today or tomorrow we will go into such a city and continue there for a year and buy and sell and make a profit"......verse 15, "because what you ought to say is, If the Lord wills, we will live and do this or that."

          James then calls this type of speech "boasting" in the next verse. I believe Scripture is very thorough on this subject.

          If someone wants to take their oath of office with the caveat, "lord willing," they can, but it will not be allowed. The wording of the oath is legally specific and required to be administered as written in law.

          But there is actually a legitimate reason for what Jesus and James say. It has to do with the Nation of Israel. The provision on oaths was enacted when God handed down the Law on Mt Sinai in Arabia. Israel was about to become a literal nation among the nations of the World, complete with land and borders. As a nation, they would be dealing with other nations. All other nations had their manner of ratifying their dealings with each other and within an individual nation. This usually involved swearing to the local gods to, not only witness the solemnity of the dealings, but hold all parties to the terms of the agreement. The gods were also responsible to mete out appropriate punishment if the terms were not met.

          Well, Israel was to be no different, except in one case. There god in all such dealing was to be YHWH, so all dealings were ratifed by swearing to YHWH according to the Law.

          The Messiah changes this, however. In fact Jesus speaks to the Pharisees and other leaders in Matthew 21:43 and says, "The Kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof."

          This new nation (ecclesia) will have no land or borders and be spread throughout the nations. They will be separate from the nation or nations around them (in the world, but not of the world). The action of the oath will no longer be needed for this new nation of Christ.

          However, if a "Christian" want to proceed anyway, he or she can do so.......and reap the consequences.

  • LayDominican profile image57
    LayDominicanposted 9 years ago

    I read somewhere about India. I  have been following the killings and the destruction of all things Christian in India. It has nothing to do with the killing of a Swami. In fact, the Maoists have taken responsibility for that.What this has to do with is  the missions work with the Untoucables or Dalits, the lowest group on the Caste System ladder. If these Dalits convert to another religion, whether it is Buddhism, Moslem or Christian, they are no longer involved in the Caste System, and have rights to own land, to get good medical care for their families, get a good education and many more perks that are denied  to them now.  I would suggest you Goggle the violence done to Christians  in India. The Hindus do not like the conversations of so many Dalits. And as these Dalits grow in faith and social standing they became become more and more distant away from the Hindu Caste System. And this is something that they donot want. For the Dalits are the ones who get the jobs that would sicken most westerners.  From claning of human waste that is thrwon out the windows into the alleys, to shoving up the cow dung of the scared cows.Restuarants must have two sets of dining ware, one for the higher caste sects, and one for the Dalits.And this just the tip of the iceberg.

    1. profile image0
      SirDentposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      With all due respect, I suggest you start another thread and post what you have here. This seems to me to be off the topic of discussion in this thread.

  • Mark Knowles profile image61
    Mark Knowlesposted 9 years ago

    The interesting thing from my perspective, is the christians amongst us seem to be looking at this from completely the "wrong" angle.

    Try to look at it from a "secular" point of view.

    For example. Me. here I am, minding my own business, going along in my life, and some one comes onto the political stage. Says they are a christian and have a mission from god according to what they read in the bible. Strict instructions - no room for maneuvering. No outs. This is what it says.

    Do I really want that person involved in the decision making process for my country/state/town? Knowing full well they have a "divine," agenda. Not only that, but they are claiming their "authority," as coming from an un-proven source, which is no more reliable than any other "god" source.

    No thanks.......

    Clever people, the writers of the US constitution.

    1. Ben Bush profile image55
      Ben Bushposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Is it possible that they understood the Bible and its God better than most "Christians?"

      1. Mark Knowles profile image61
        Mark Knowlesposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        I could certainly go for that. For myself, I understand the bible a lot better as an atheist than I did as a christian smile

        Just imagine the pressure they would have been under from the various church groups of the time to ensure they were allowed to practice their version in peace.

        "OK, OK!" they said. "We will write the Constitution in such a way as church and state are forever kept separate."

        'Tis a two way street, thank goodness.

        Clever people smile

    2. Ben Bush profile image55
      Ben Bushposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Mark,
      You're right. "Christians" are looking at it from the wrong angle. That's becasue they have accepted the teaching that the World is theirs to conquer in the name of "God" or "Christ" rather than simply following the Bible. Scripture lays down specific instructions for believers in Christ regarding their agenda and how to carry it out. This agenda is a particularly poitical one, but in no way encourages entrance into the World's political system. Instead, they are to engage in their own politics separate from the world.

      The "secular" point of view specifically excludes "Christians." This does not mean that Christians are not citizens on this earth. It means that the extent of their involvement is to submit themselves to the secular "powers that be" while engaging in the politics of Christ.

      Christians have bought into a worldview that doesn't line up with the Bible. Too bad. You'd think that after decades of political frustration, they would begin to understand or, at least, begin to get the idea that something's wrong. Buuuuuuuut?????????.................

  • Post a Reply
    jump to first post
     
    working