No Christian is Involved in Politics

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

I'm quite well-educated regarding Jesus, thanks.
Lifetime of it.

Don't duck the issue - you don't want to help people you don't know, or people you do know who you think are not worthy of help.

Yeah, very loving.
And what you don't address, besides that, is that Bernie's plan would also TAKE CARE OF YOU. Selfish souls can't see that. They try to reserve the right to judge the worthiness of others' neediness and whether they've "earned it."

Now, Priest, tell me how Jesus would have addressed all of you "No! I don't want to help that guy! You can't make me!" types? You all who don't give a # about anyone else's pain or needs?

I don't like to pay taxes to subsidize WARS, or foreign invasions.....
I don't like to pay taxes to subsidize slave-wage employers' EMPLOYEES, because the employer is too damned cheap to do it.
I don't have a choice.


You don't like to help keep people from starving or dying....when their circumstances are no fault of their own...
perhaps one day you will need help yourself. Perhaps you will have a medical emergency that would bankrupt you, or your family members - and not be able to afford it because you don't want "health care for all" or "food for all" or "medicine for all."

Stop telling people they are ignorant, unworthy, and don't deserve your "benevolence." Address your own hypocrisy.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Academic knowledge does not guarantee spiritual understanding. Jesus made that point with the Pharisees.

The fact is Jesus advocated voluntary charity, not socialist tyrrany.

I'm not going to get into a political debate with you, as you know full well that I will disagree with you. The FACT is that Jesus never advocated socialist tyrrany. People who CHOSE to join in and give everything to Christian communities did so out of free will, not by individual mandate.

Its not your political ideology that offends me, but your imposition of your ideology upon Christ (and everyone else for that matter). Its dishonest, disgusting, and frankly herd-bound mentality...a total lack of individual thought.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Who said anything about 'academic knowledge'? I spent decades endeavoring to establish spiritual connections with the unseen. I have had experiences that convince me that life continues after death, that there is power in this world that can be only vaguely imagined or dimly present, but is indescribable, and indefinable using language. There is no "Satan" - there is no "hell" - there is only a soul's journey to reach it's source.

I spent those same decades investigating OTHER religions, and comparative religion. I get it. I have been on my knees, praying, I have experienced a transcendental connection to the Ultimate Divine - but it wasn't through "church" - it was through meditation and effort. That fleeting feeling that you see that all is one - that flash of Enlightenment - it can't be sustained every day, and as Alan Watts long ago wrote, it's the memory of it that sustains faith in it.

So shut up to me about what I don't know, how much experience I have, and acting all "superior".

Now - we were talking about hypocrisy. Jesus taught charity, and care for those in need, disenfranchised, and ostracized. YOU ARE DOING THAT if you think you are entitled to judge whether a person's or family's suffering or neediness is worth your contribution or not.

Shame on you.

As for my own hypocrisy - I actually care more about animals than I do about other grown people. I care about helpless children. Adults? Not so much. But, BECAUSE there are so many crap parents who don't know and/or don't care about nurturing or raising their children to reach the child's full potential, intervention is necessary.

You can believe that or not. There are definitely UNFIT PARENTS out there. Their KIDS deserve the support of "the Village". The parents need education and support in the facets of parenting. The help that I offer is not in the form of money - it is in empathy, compassion, understanding, and emotional support. THAT is my God-given task and gift.

And I don't think of "God" as a guy, a vindictive, judgmental old man in white robes....."God" is the ultimate Source - and is indifferent to how LONG IT TAKES for our souls to mature. There's no "deadline." Our souls innately try to grow while we are here. We can consciously thwart that growth and refuse to learn, which will simply result in us coming back to start over, no passing "go", and no collecting Jesus points.






You, my well-meaning friend, are an amateur. A beginner. Open your mind.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Its dishonest, disgusting, and frankly herd-bound mentality...a total lack of individual thought.

/shrug

Your judgment of me does not impact my soul. I am the farthest thing from "herd-bound" mentality. That's all you "Jesus is the only way" people.

Oh, and I'm as honest and open as I can possibly be. You calling me "disgusting, dishonest and lacking individual thought" is a preposterous projection. Look in the mirror, friend. You're nowhere near "enlightened."

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

The FACT is that Jesus never advocated socialist tyrrany.

Comical gold.
You don't know that Jesus even EXISTED as a FACT. You just think it's a fact and that you know the facts. All because of some book that MEN WROTE.

Bernie Sanders Outrages Evangelical Republicans With The Idea Of A Socialist Jesus

You can even make a case against everything Bernie Sanders told the crowd at Liberty University. All you have to do is ignore everything Jesus said:

“No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.” (Matthew 6:24)

“Then [Jesus] said to them, ‘Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions.'” (Luke 12:15)

“Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God” (Luke 6:20-22) and an accompanying curse on the rich: “But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation.” (Luke 6:24).

Sanders is right in line with this thinking

FACT. And that's your own precious scripture speaking.

Address your hypocrisy.

Here's a bit more to get you all lathered up:

At the very least, the failure of Christians, and as the Pope himself has pointed out, the churches, to follow Jesus’ teachings, is an indictment of 2,000 years of Christianity, which has always had an inordinate love of money. If Christianity won’t take care of the poor, socialism can and will.

If no socialist country today is a utopia, neither has been any Christian country that has ever existed. Not least because there is a price to be paid for Christian charity.

Throughout history, the Church has demanded, in return for its services, conversion to whatever form of Christianity is handing out the goods. All socialism requires is that you be breathing. I know which I prefer. After all, Jesus didn’t say only poor Jewish people were blessed. If he had, Christians today wouldn’t be such hypocrites when they reject the Pope’s words.

And still more:


Chris Queen. An Evangelical commentator and columnist, who thinks exactly like you do.

Christian columnist Chris Queen complained in a column at PJ Media Wednesday

Chris Queen

ignore[s] these words of Jesus ... [as he] did in response to Sanders Wednesday, writing that the “God of the Bible is not a socialist.” Because, he claims, Jesus was talking to people, not to governments. People, he fails to mention, who don’t give a sh*t what Jesus said.

“The glaring problem with Sanders’ remarks is that, for a speech intended for an audience at a conservative Christian school, the senator’s words sorely lacked actual scripture.”

See above posts for the scriptures.

Here it is again:

At the very least, the failure of Christians, and as the Pope himself has pointed out, the churches, to follow Jesus’ teachings, is an indictment of 2,000 years of Christianity, which has always had an inordinate love of money. If Christianity won’t take care of the poor, socialism can and will.

Oh, and before you decide to go there - the Pope is a CHRISTIAN. Catholics are CHRISTIANS.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs
I didn't say you disgusted me, but your imposition of political ideology on Jesus and His words.

Anyways, I'm finished talking to you. Take your politics elsewhere. Maybe you'll convert someone.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

This thread is about Christians and Politics, and furthermore, it's not even your OP!

I won't take it elsewhere. I will continue to point out your misinformed and amateurish thinking.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: BuzzyWigs
I didn't say you disgusted me, but your imposition of political ideology on Jesus and His words.

Anyways, I'm finished talking to you. Take your politics elsewhere. Maybe you'll convert someone.

You're only finished talking to me because you know I am right. You have no leg to stand on.
LOL!!!!
Social Justice in the Bible

Jesus, in his teaching, addressed the economic manifestation of social injustice by targeting its root in human intentions – excessive fear for personal security and the resulting avarice with regard to material goods.

‘No one can serve two masters; for a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth. Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing?’ (Mt 6:24f).

Accordingly, the early Christian community lived in material modesty, sharing their goods, as Luke describes it.

‘All who believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need’ (Acts 2:44f).

Get it?

It is what it is. My interpretation is every bit as legitimate as yours. It's just that you refuse to see it.

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Basically, it seems like you think Christians should only govern through a theocracy. Is that correct?

I can't speak for the poster you addressed this to, but I'd like to add:

A democratically chosen theocracy, Christian or other, seems legitimate to me.
God would be president, without pay, ten laws are enough and legislators can cease mooching off farmers and having their opinions enforced. Judges would rule over traffic disputes and the like using theocratic principles instead of what ever they use now.

So basically I would support the principles upon which is set the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria?
Oy vey, I don't know if it's wise to answer this when PRISM listens, but speaking for my own country in the Levant, I definitely wouldn't mind if weed prohibition was replaced with Genesis 1:29 as legal standards.

Along with Roman (they still say they're from Rome or is the "novus ordo seclorum" just for show?) law in general actually.

Surely a well oiled theocracy is above "terrorism" because Christ/God/Allah/& c. is merciful and loving.
Terror or fear is the night of love's bright morning. Some adversary could make it look otherwise though.
And many would be fooled.
For how long?

Which 10 laws? The 10 Commandments? If so, you realize that the 10 Commandments are basically a summary of the "Covenant Code", right? So should the other laws in the Covenant Code be ignored (as well as all of the other laws in the Bible)?

Also, which version of the Bible would be accepted? The Didache and Pes_hitta have vastly different versions of Scriptures in some parts. And the Septuagint and the Eastern Christian scriptures have far more books than the Western Bibles (like the King James Version). So which Christian Scriptures will be used? Should Christians from the Ethiopian Orthodox Church be forced to follow Protestant Christian interpretations, even though they existed long before the Protestants did? Or should Protestants have to forgo their interpretations in this proposed theocracy since they're relative "newcomers" compared to most other major branches of Christianity?

This is why religious people tend to prefer secular governments over theocracies. In secular states, individuals can have the right to follow their own religious tenets without being forced to follow things that go against their beliefs. They also aren't allowed to force other religions and denominations to follow things that go against their beliefs. It's part of a "Live and let live" philosophy which I think is far better than a theocracy (unless that theocracy also allows freedom of religion for adherents of other sects, denominations, and religions).

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Yeah, I think they ditched under the pressure.

Have a great evening!

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

And that's why your position is hypocritical. It isn't up to you to determine who is worthy and who is not.

You're thinking of your position: mine is that no one should decide for others who is and isn't worthy.
And therefore no one should decide how others distribute.
Especially the televised people who live in castles.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Which 10 laws? The 10 Commandments? If so, you realize that the 10 Commandments are basically a summary of the "Covenant Code", right? So should the other laws in the Covenant Code be ignored (as well as all of the other laws in the Bible)? Also, which version of the Bible would be accepted? The Didache and Pes_hitta have vastly different versions of Scriptures in some parts. And the Septuagint and the Eastern Christian scriptures have far more books than the Western Bibles (like the King James Version). So which Christian Scriptures will be used? Should Christians from the Ethiopian Orthodox Church be forced to follow Protestant Christian interpretations, even though they existed long before the Protestants did? Or should Protestants have to forgo their interpretations in this proposed theocracy since they're relative "newcomers" compared to most other major branches of Christianity? This is why religious people tend to prefer secular governments over theocracies. In secular states, individuals can have the right to follow their own religious tenets without being forced to follow things that go against their beliefs. They also aren't allowed to force other religions and denominations to follow things that go against their beliefs. It's part of a "Live and let live" philosophy which I think is far better than a theocracy (unless that theocracy also allows freedom of religion for adherents of other sects, denominations, and religions).

I was referring to the ten commandments, because they are the ten divine laws in my own religion.
The rest of it is Levite opinion, good reads but not divine in any way, I'm not talking about a Levitocracy here.

The version of theocracy and therefore scripture to be taken as divine is up to the society building itself around their own scripture, which of course differ as laws geographically differ today.

There isn't a thing in the ten commandments that would forbid freedom of religion: commandments are clearly given to a specific crowd and their descendants. "be friend to the stranger for you have been your self a stranger in the land of Egypt" doesn't to me mean "force people to become jews and live as you do".

Following my own religious tenets in the USA has landed me in jail. After the democratic process of voting for a medical weed proposition made my right to enjoy seed bearing plants part of state law.
Therefore I certainly would rather live in a place where the word of my god supercedes the opinions of public servants, by far.

as for ""Live and let live" philosophy which I think is far better than a theocracy ", I think so too.
However this isn't the current paradigm by any standards and where people have disputes, arbitration is based on something. Scripture to me is a good basis for arbitration.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

You are funny. You all 'give' because you are "under duress" or "threatened with" being sent to HELL!!! You "give" because your megarich preacher tells you he'll see to it that you don't go to hell if you give.

No

Giving because you want others to have isn't fear of hell or fear at all.
Fear of being sent to jail where they've sent Blade actor Wesley snipes or threatened to send Fugees singer
Lauryn Hill is what you're thinking of. This is hell.

Giving to those who need because I can isn't paying the bonuses cops get when they raid houses for weed.

Or Halliburton's leftover money from constructing military bases abroad in clear violation of the US constitution.

Or paying for a surveillance of all emails megacenter and employees when kids are starving and their parents sent to actual hell for not paying enough city tax or fines.

I'll pay the government when I agree with it, otherwise I'd be an accomplice.

a reply to: wisvol

And what does this have with the topic of the OP?

a reply to: ChesterJohn

I am involved in politics of my own free will although I will not vote or ask to be voted for or take a public service position in a public service I don't agree with.

My response to tony here isn't involving anyone other than me.

His argument was that socialism is actual generosity while giving religiously is fear, I felt compelled to answer in case someone actually thinks this.

a reply to: wisvol

Fear of being sent to jail where they've sent Blade actor Wesley snipes or threatened to send Fugees singer
Lauryn Hill is what you're thinking of. This is hell.

Giving to those who need because I can isn't paying the bonuses cops get when they raid houses for weed.

Or Halliburton's leftover money from constructing military bases abroad in clear violation of the US constitution.

Or paying for a surveillance of all emails megacenter and employees when kids are starving and their parents sent to actual hell for not paying enough city tax or fines.

What?! Interesting tangent. Says a lot about where your thinking is.

First time I've heard that 'take' on things. Perhaps you're talking about the stupid "War on Drugs", and hiring mercenary armies in "Dirty Wars", which I have read. I agree with you if that is the theme of your post.

I'm fine with all of what you said, as far as I can tell. I am a Social Worker - I am also a Liberal.
I get it.


Am I correct in paraphrasing your position?
If so, we have no argument here, friend. You're preaching to the choir.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I don't mean to be needlessly antagonistic either.

And surely socialism is great within a society where individuals candidly choose and direct it, and that society would indeed resemble the idea I have of a Christian theocracy in many ways.

Televangelists asking for money in the name of religion are from the same barrel as comrade Stalin pretending his govt needed more resources than its citizens in the name of communism.
His gulags were disgraceful, not socially justifiable, and less filled than today's American gulags.

Wars on drugs, invasive wars, wars on concepts and every instance of attacking peaceful people are disgraces. Not obeying or funding these initiatives can be construed as participating in politics.

Serving a meal for a hundred, or even for twelve, in a city does more good than thrice its cost sent to the IRS and doesn't fund attacks, lies, or oppression.
Thrice being a very low estimate.

a reply to: wisvol

Wars on drugs, invasive wars, wars on concepts and every instance of attacking peaceful people are disgraces. Not obeying or funding these initiatives can be construed as participating in politics.

Okay, I think I see what you're saying.