|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
H W J V. This is not an eye exam. It is an acronym for "How Would Jesus Vote?" HWJV is a paraphrase of the WWJD, or "What Would Jesus Do?", movement. WWJD is based on the premise that if we ask ourselves this question whenever we make a decision, and then act as Jesus would act, the world would be a better place.
I am sufficiently out of the Generation X cultural swim to know much about the WWJD movement. However, its premise should guide us as we near Election Day. I am not going to tell you how to vote (although you certainly should vote), or how Jesus would vote.
Jesus had no political agenda. He was not a left-winger or a right-winger. It is fashionable during election season for candidates to claim that God is on their side, and to question the spiritual sincerity of anyone who disagrees with them or their party. This trivializes Christianity.
I am convinced that most Christians are not passionate about politics. This is not to condemn them, as God calls each of us to different tasks. Political involvement, like missionary work or singing in the choir, is not for everyone. However, even the most apolitical Christian no doubt wants good schools, safe streets, and economic prosperity. He wonders why poverty, racism, war, abortion, illiteracy, crime, drug abuse, pornography and numerous other social ills exist.
We want rest for our souls. We want to know that everything is going to be all right. However, if Scripture promises anything, everything will not be all right. God never promises utopia. As Jesus tells the apostles: "All men will hate you because of Me" (Matthew 10:22). We are fools to believe otherwise. Jesus calls us to be light in a world of darkness and salt in a world of decay. He calls us a "shining city on a hill." He never promises that our society will merit this description (Matthew 5:13-16). If anyone deserved ideal surroundings, it was Jesus. Consider His lot in life.
Defenders of communism tell us it would work if we would just put the right people in charge. Sadly, many Christians believe we can restore a Christian America if we only put enough Christians in charge. They tell us that if we just elect enough Christians, and fine-tune things just precisely, we will arrive at some kind of ideal society. This is unscriptural hogwash. The Bible never promises that we can vote, tax, spend, censor, legislate, litigate, regulate, confiscate and incarcerate our way into utopia.
Either man is in charge or God is in charge. If man is in charge, he will at some point write God out of the picture. Give man too much power and he will cease to acknowledge any authority higher than himself. This explains why rogue governments persecute Christians. Our citizenship is elsewhere (Philippians 3:20). The call to submit to authority (I Peter 2:13) does not instruct us to put earthly rulers as our final authority. When God's laws conflict with man's, we are to obey God's laws (Acts 5:28-29).
America's founders believed, in Jefferson's words, that "government (was) at best a necessary evil and at worst an intolerable one." The Constitution they authored limits the central government to a few specifically defined tasks. It does not give us rights. Rather, it guarantees rights given to us by God. Consistent with the Bible, the Constitution does not promise a Christian society or a perfect society. Rather it ordains a free society.
Life will never measure up to our desires. However, working to bring about an ideal society is not nearly as important as living in accordance with God's call for our lives. Only in a free society can Christians ask God what to do in a particular situation, hear His answer, and then carry out this answer without having to ask permission. We act as if this principle only applied to what happens in church, and to such things as school prayer. However, Christianity must guide us in all aspects of life.
God gives us the right to run our families, our businesses, and our private organizations, as well as to defend ourselves, educate our children and nurse ourselves from sickness to health as we see fit without having to seek the blessing of the secular authorities. Our current form of government (which came into being long before 1993 and will not go away anytime soon) militates against all these rights. It injects politics into countless areas where neither God nor America's founders intended politics to be a factor.
Your guys may win or your guys may lose on November 7. While it is important to vote, and to pray about how to vote, Christians have a far more important electoral responsibility. We have a King whose Kingdom "is not of this earth" (John 18:36). His is the only Kingdom where we can elect a king, and where every day is election day. We have a daily choice as to who will run our lives. We must choose daily to place Jesus on the throne of our lives, regardless of our political circumstances.
Unlike earthly kings, Jesus will not force Himself upon us. The fruits of the spirit (Galatians 5:22) are the result of the a daily voluntary walk with God. The power of this walk to change our lives is "sharper than any double-edged sword" (Hebrews 4:13). This sword is infinitely more powerful than any that could ever be wielded by the state.
Just as Scripture tells Christians to recognize people by their fruit (Matthew 7:15-20), the world will likewise recognize us by our fruit. They are watching our every action, and ruthlessly analyzing our examples. They hold us to a much higher standard than they hold themselves. Why shouldn't they? After all, we claim to have a direct relationship with the King of the universe.
Many will rejoice when we stumble. However, many will be drawn to Christ by the power of our examples. While these examples may be imperfect, many secular folk will conclude that these Christians really do have something that they don't. As a result, they will draw closer to Christ. All the while, Jesus stands outside their doors knocking. He will only enter when invited (Revelation 3:20). They will invite Him in God's time, not ours.
This is how the cause of Christ is spread. This is how we must work if we really want a better America. In the days leading up to the birth of Christ, many awaited a grand entrance by a political savior. Instead, God gave them a helpless baby born to a peasant girl in a stable in an obscure village. Yet from the beginning, the rulers of the earth felt very threatened by this child (Matthew 2:13).
The message is clear. Just as you build the foundation of a house before you build the roof, building the kind of society we say we want is a grassroots proposition. The real work involves getting plenty of dirt under our fingernails and taking more than a few hockey pucks in the mouth. The bad news is that there is no worldly glamour to it. The impending election will not change you as a person or me as a person. Effecting change within ourselves is something that only comes from an abiding faith in the redemptive blood of Jesus. This is a universal call to Christians, regardless of political persuasion. The good news is that this comes from a vote you can cast any day.
Let's see how long this thread can avoid the blasphemous and tasteless suggestion that Jesus would endorse any one political candidate.
"...render unto Caesar..."
Just using common sense I would say that jesus would oppose delivering 90% of a baby and then sucking their brains out. Caesar on the other hand would have had no objection to that policy.
JESUS understands priorities. I recall the gospel account of Jesus railing against people who were unmerciful toward their parents, but adhered to religious legalisms. They majored in minors; they were "religious", but not pleasing to God. This gospel account reminds me of the reprobates in our society who preach the mantra of woman's choice, at the expense of a child's life. Jesus would hate this hypocrisy, and would call these people snakes! Jesus would condemn so-called pro-choice, pro-homosexual people for omitting the weightier matters of the law, i.e., "do not spill innocent blood; do not call evil, good". Jesus unequivocally condemns pro-abortion, pro-homosexual candidates!
How would Jesus vote? Heck, I'd be willing just to see Him show up to REGISTER.
Michael
HA!
I suggest, in all seriousness, that in a very real sense He does vote -- by proxy through those who seek righteousness in the affairs of men and women.
That which happens within the borders of this choice and sacred land and abroad has a transcendentally important role in the preparation of the world for The Savior's coming and in the spiritual and temporal welfare of all of us as we seek to find and serve in our places with respect to the Eternal Plan of our Heavenly Father.
Indeed, we were created in God's image for a special purpose.
The Lord Himself has declared, "For behold, it is my work and my glory to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man."
You're right--Caesar would've made it a new spectator sensation at the Circus Maximus.
Weimar America hasn't quite degenerated to that point...
Thank you for your wise and thoughtful response. My objection would be to a "Gott Mit Uns" partisanship--which tends to dehumanize and demonize political adversaries.
?? Wrong question...question should be...HWJV??...??'How would JUDAS vote??'
Vote Freedom...vote for..."Buchanan/Foster"...it may be YOUR last free choice!!
Good post. Thanks. No one should assume that God is on the side of one candidate in this election.
"He was not a left-winger or a right-winger."
That's correct, He is a libertarian.
Is this the Doug Newman that used to live in AZ?
I thought it stood for What Would Jesus Drive?
Most people assume WWJD stands for "What would Jesus do?" But according to Scott Ostler of the San Francisco Chronicle, the initials really mean "What would Jesus drive?"
One of Ostler's readers theorized that Jesus would tool around in an old Plymouth because "the Bible says God drove Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden in a Fury." But then Roy Rivenburg jumped into the fray, saying in his online humor column "Off-Kilter" (www.offkilter.org) that in Psalm 83, "the Almighty clearly owns a Pontiac and a Geo. The passage urges the Lord to 'pursue your enemies with your Tempest and terrify them with your Storm.'"
Rivenburg goes on to postulate that God favors Dodge pickup trucks, because "Moses' followers are warned not to go up a mountain until 'the Ram's horn sounds a long blast.'" Some scholars insist that Jesus drove a Honda but didn't like to talk about it. As proof, they cite a verse in St. John's gospel where Christ tells a crowd, "For I did not speak of my own Accord..." Meanwhile, Ostler has discovered that Moses rode an old British motorcycle, as evidenced by a Bible passage declaring that "the roar of Moses' Triumph is heard in the hills."
Click here for entire commentary
And certainly no journalist would have thought to ask Carter, as Tim Russert asked Bush during the Republican debate in Michigan last week , "And what would Jesus think of the death penalty?"
Bush has himself to blame for that.
The exchange began with a fair question from the audience. Would Bush's religious convictions influence him in the Oval Office? Bush's answer was less than Kennedyesque.
"My religious convictions need to be reflected in how I live my life," he said.
Russert then asked about the "111 men and 1 woman you have put to death."
"The state of Texas has put to death," Bush replied. As if he hadn't had anything to do with it.
"What if you were wrong in any of those instances?" Russert asked. "And what would Jesus think of the death penalty?"
Bush said he didn't believe Texas had "ever" executed anyone who was innocent -- a claim the late Leonel Herrera certainly would dispute -- and averred that the death penalty protects society. But he didn't answer the second part of the question.
Russert persisted: "And what would Jesus think of the death penalty?"
"Listen," Bush said. "I'm a lowly sinner. I'm not going to put words in Jesus' mouth."
Vote Freedom...vote for...Buchanan/Foster
Twelve million pieces of silver can't be all wrong.
First of all he wouldn't vote! He serves God. You think he would vote to serve a corrupt man? Jesus has the greatest commander in chief as his dad! He would pass the voting booth and sit in a field full of lilies.
He should of pressed an answer from russert also.
Jesus is obviously a socialist. Free medical care, free wine, clothe the naked, feed the hungry and all that. He would raise taxes on the rich so that more of them could get into heaven. He would pay everybody the same regardless of how long they labored.
Jesus is obviously a socialist.
Really? Then just how do you explain this!?!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Where Would Jesus Shop? , Where Would Jesus Surf? , Where Would Jesus Shop? ,
WWJS? , the WWJS logos, and Hot Deals Newsletter, are trademarks, or
registered service marks of WWJS, a division of Page Corporation, and are
protected by U.S. Copyright laws and Foreign Treaties. The code,
methodology and design of this site are copyright 2000 WWJS, a division of
Page Corporation, All Rights Reserved.
I think Jesus is on the exchange at INRH!
"Russert persisted: "And what would Jesus think of the death penalty?""
He didn't particularly think Friday was a good day. He would have preferred it wait until after the weekend. {;~)
Seriously, Jesus understood it necessary to 'save' others, even though he was 'innocent'.
Innocents may die and the 'guilty' may live--He cautions however to 'Choose Life'(Deuteronomy 30:19)
He is a libertarian.
Jesus is obviously a socialist.
Ahhh.... a libertarian socialist.
re# 19) Jesus is "KING of kings and LORD of lords." .....Kings are NOT socialists!!!!
Jesus had no political agenda.
And therefore all the rest of your post is irrelevant.
Would you be interested in how Buddha would vote? How about a Hindu leader? Or Muhammed, someone want to know how he would vote? What about Lao Tzu, probably not a voter but who knows? Should we ask Confucius for his wisdom before voting? Let's not leave out that great leader, Moses; can we vote without his input?
The founding fathers would not ask that question. Religion should be a personal matter not a political matter. Dictators like to combine their religion and politics.
Great article!!!
"...render unto Caesar..."
Contrary to common understanding, in America "Caesar" is supposed to be We the People, *NOT* our elected representatives.
Myself, I've always been fond of the old bumpersticker:
GOD RIDES A HARLEY
The founding fathers would not ask that question. Religion should be a personal matter not a political matter.
You apparently haven't read many of their writings, or you wouldn't put these two sentences next to each other.
Jesus is not a socialist, by any measure. From the start, men were Free. Socialism is evil, that is why he gave men the 10 commandments. Jesus Himself summarized these, when He responded to a ? with, "love God and Love your neighbor".
The socialists use the Bible for propaganda purposes. They claim God's goodness as justification for their theft of the works of others and redistribution for their own glory and power. That is not what God wants. He wants His people to be Free. Any gifts of ones treasures to others done in His name, and in Freedom, gives glory to God. Socialism gives glory to satin.
The question should be: How would Jesus want us to vote? The answer: As close to Christian principles as we can.
He cautions however to 'Choose Life'(Deuteronomy 30:19)
You are quoting Jesus from Deuteronomy? Nice try, Jesus does not arrive until the New Testament. Many Bibles have his words written in red, maybe that would help you.
You are quoting Jesus from Deuteronomy? Nice try, Jesus does not arrive until the New Testament.
LOL :)
Actually, most Bible scholars agree that the pre-incarnate Christ (the third person in the Trinity BEFORE the foundation of the world) appears all over the Old Testament.
The question of how a diety would vote is an examination, both of ones understanding of the religion and the truth in the religion itself. Voting involves morality and most religions cover the subject. The morality expounded and the morality of the candidates are what is being examined.
"...I'm not going to put words in Jesus' mouth..."
Good for Governor Bush (from one his most tireless detractors ;^)!!
You apparently haven't read many of their writings, or you wouldn't put these two sentences next to each other.
You mistake religion for spirituality. Most of the founding fathers were quite spiritually oriented but they had the wisdom to recognize that different people understand and express spiritual beliefs differently. That is why they made a point of keeping religion and politics separate.
Thanks. I had always thought the passage referred to the secular/political and material worlds--as opposed to the Spiritual.
Jeremiah 51
33 This is what the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel, says: "The Daughter of Babylon is like a threshing floor at the time it is trampled; the time to harvest her will soon come."
That's how.
Capital punishment was part of the Jewish judicial system since the book of Genesis, long before Jesus got on the scene. He didn't fight anyone's execution, nor ultimately escape his own. If Lieberman was really a good orthodox Jew, he would be explaining the law of the Jewish people (or did that one also change since "LIEberman" now follows "Gore" on the bumper sticker?)
Thanks. I had always thought the passage referred to the secular/political and material worlds--as opposed to the Spiritual.
You're welcome :) And, I think, pretty much correct. But we in what's left of America have become conditioned over the decades to think of "our" government as The King - when in fact that's exactly what the founders wanted to prevent by giving us a Constitutional Republic. We the People ARE the King. Our "representatives" are supposed to be our employess, not our rulers. They (and most of us) have forgotten that.
most Bible scholars agree that the pre-incarnate Christ (the third person in the Trinity BEFORE the foundation of the world) appears all over the Old Testament.
And some Bible scholars make a distinction between the spiritual Christ and the incarnate Jesus. But there are too many different interpretations of Biblical writings to resolve in this discussion. What is it in or near your quoted passage that indicates Jesus was speaking? Don't do a Gorism now.
"He cautions however to 'Choose Life'(Deuteronomy 30:19)"
You made the assumption the 'He' was God the Son. I made no such inference although because of the Triune 'nature' of God it is correct of you to do so.
Jesus had no political agenda. He was not a left-winger or a right-winger.
Doctrinally, Jesus was more like a Pharisee than anything else (the sect, not the perjorative label). Also, since he recognized the authority of the religious establishment, he would be classed more as a right-wing conservative rather than do-whatever-seems-right liberal.
Socialism is evil
That's ridiculous. Political theories aren't evil. Men are evil. The early church lived under a socialist economy.
"That's ridiculous. Political theories aren't evil. Men are evil. The early church lived under a socialist economy."
Evil is a conscious decision to violate someones rights. Socialism is a theory that promotes this as a matter of course. The commands of God respect the rights and Free will of all to determine their own destiny. Jesus taught that charity is to be done out of ones own Free will. Does socialism allow a choice? What coercion was involved in the formation of the early church?
Tee hee hee....
You made the assumption the 'He' was God the Son.
No, I made no assumptions. The interpretation of the Bible (or any other religious text) is subject to a variety of understandings. That is why it is wise to keep religion out of politics.
It is often extremely difficult to agree on some elements of either religion or politics. It becomes next to impossible when both religion and politics are combined.
re#44)......early church lived under socialist economy.
No Way!!!....The church only/always lives under Creator/Redeemer-God's Grace........"Amazing Grace" from Him as a gift from the King of the Universe Himself.
You say socialism is evil. Here is your delimma:
Jesus was all good.
He preached principles of socialism.
Therefore, socialism is good.
Help me out here or better yet help yourself out.
re#49) ONLY GOD IS ALL GOOD!!! are you saying that Jesus is GOD????
There is no dilemma here. Jesus did not preach socialism. I made several posts here that explain all this.
What is it in or near your quoted passage that indicates Jesus was speaking?
Actually, it wasn't me that quoted a passage, so I don't remember. I was just pointing out that Jesus actually COULD be speaking in the Old Testament.
That's why the Jews got so upset when He said things like "Before Abraham was I AM." They knew He was calling Himself God, both by His use of God's name (I AM) and by saying He existed before Abraham.
He cautions however to 'Choose Life'(Deuteronomy 30:19)
"You are quoting Jesus from Deuteronomy? Nice try, Jesus does not arrive until the New Testament.
No, I made no assumptions."
And you CAUTIONED me about a 'gorism'???? {;~)
"are you saying that Jesus is GOD????"
By my faith--guaranteed.
re#54)Where do you get your faith from???
according to Scott Ostler of the San Francisco Chronicle, the initials really mean "What would Jesus drive?"
Jesus was most likely a Chevy man since he rode into Jerusalem on an Ass.
FOMOCO FOREVER !!
re#54)Where do you get your faith from???
He probably got his the same place I got mine ;)
It was a gift, given upon my wanting to know the Truth with all of my heart.
"Where do you get your faith from???"
The 'Word'/'One' of Hebrews 11:1. And you, where does your faith come from?
I am arguing within the context of spunkets religious beliefs. I am not here to present my beliefs about Jesus except in the context of the question posted. I posit that Jesus's teachings in many ways are socialistic.
I'D VOTE FOR JESUS CAUSE ITS THE TRUE WAY OF GETTING A FAIR SHAKE WE WOULD'NT NEED GUNS AND THERE WOULDNT BE ABORTIONS RAPES MURDERS OR ANY OF THE SORT.
THE STREETS WOULD BE LINED WITH PRESIOUS STONES AND ALL THE WORLD WOULD LIVE IN PERFECT HARMONY WITH ITS CREATOR BUT THIS IS ANOTHER STORY NOT OF THIS WORLD BUT OF A WORLD TO COME.
BUT FOR NOW BUSH WILL HAVE TO DO HE'S NOT A SAINT NOR A GOD BUT A MAN I THINK I CAN TRUST TO SHOW A BRIGHT FUTURE TO MY CHILDREN AND MY FAMILY AND GOD BLESS HIM AND ALL WHOM HE TOUCHES AND GOD BLESS THE PERSON WHO POSTED THIS.
I share your concern re: a "Gott Mit Uns" partisanship and agree that such has the potential to to dehumanize and demonize political adversaries.
However, I think that there are many men and women on "both sides of the aisle" and in political parties beyond the Pubs and Dems who seek to do good in accordance with their own consciences and faith -- and there can be counted as "Uns."
My concern is those -- who by their words, distortions, overt lies, and indisputably evil plans or deeds (e.g., the slaughter of innocents; seeking to destroy or undermine the Constitution and our God-given freedoms; selling out our Nation to our enemies for power, influence, "conributions," cash or payment in kind, etc.) -- are clearly the very "outliers" that all people of good will must cast aside through the ballot or, Heaven help us, by more extreme means should/when that about which our Founding Fathers and the Lord Himself have warned us ever comes to pass.
Discussion of presidental candidates aside, I was somewhat heartened last night to hear the civil and considered remarks of Mr. Cheney and Senator Lieberman, both of whom I believe to be decent and honorable men despite the flaws that can be found in all of the children of men.
I believe that Governor Bush fits the bill, as well. However, it is the collective cancer that has ravaged our Nation for the past seven-plus years that must be relegated to its rightful place in history.
I do not presume to judge the soul of any of the aforementioned "outliers" and often wonder how they might have turned out had they experienced other life events and had not encountered some of the personal and spiritual influences they did.
The good news is, at least in my framework of belief, that all who truly repent and humbly come unto the Lord -- with the unfortunate exception of those who have shed innocent blood of their own free will and when other options were available -- will be redeemed in accordance with our Heavenly Father's plan for His children.
It's this simple...
Jesus knows that the one thing that separates human beings from all other creatures on this planet is consciousness...
Jesus also knows that consciousness is the most powerful gift that we can be given...
Jesus would vote for the candidate that respected individual consciousness and free will the most...
And the candidate that Jesus would vote for who has the most respect for individual conscious human beings is...
Harry Browne...
Without question...
Jesus preached the 10 commandments which say, among other things, that "Thou Shalt Not Steal" and "Thou Shalt Not Covet." Socialism is nothing but theft and envy. As far as "loving thy neighbor", Jesus did not have a gun at anyone's head when He said that. As far as the early church living under socialism, if you describe Acts 2 and Acts 4 as socialist, you could not be more wrong. These communities of shiny happy Christians holding hands are the result of the Holy Spirit, not of some socialist economic regime. Again, no guns at heads or IRS here.
Great post. Love the screen name. I can hear Jerry saying it.
Give me a break. It is neither tasteless nor blasphemous to think that in a civil society in which Jesus---unlike His day, when it was a monarchy--would NOT exercise His political RESPONSIBILITIES is itself "tasteless" and "blasphemous." Therefore, which candidate/party would He vote for?
Without question, the one in which you have a pro-life position. Without question, for the ONE MAN who has "named the NAME" in his campaign without specifically being prompted to.
Tic, your position is so ludicrous that you suggest Jesus wouldn't choose one food (figs) over another (bread). But in fact He chose constantly, as we all do. Now get real.
Technically, you are right, but really, you are wrong. No, God is "not on either side," because God doesn't change. But ONE OR THE OTHER SIDE IS ON GOD'S SIDE. And you would be a fool to suggest that any political party can constantly mock God and have any hope of claiming His Name for anything other than salvation in total repentance.
And I've seen none of that from the pro-homosexual, pro-abortion, pro-slavery Democratic Party.
You guys don't kid yourselves. Jesus is not a relativist. I think He'd be smiling coming out of the polling place on Nov. 7, having voted for Bush.
Glenn,
the fact that neither you (apparently) nor Russert KNOW what Jesus's position would be doesn't change the fact that he had a position. When He said that He came to fulfill the Law, that hardly did away with the death penalty. Indeed, had He opposed the death penalty, He would have refused to die on the cross. After all, He could have found other ways to die.
Bush is not a sinner. (This is part of his poor scriptural teaching, and one can't really blame him.) Corinthians says he is a "recreated spirit"---all things have become new. So his old sinful NATURE is dead. Yes, he can still sin, but that's not who "he is."
Above all, Jesus, through the teachings in the New Testament, affirms multiple times that society's laws must be obeyed "that we might live in peace." This is one of the main reasons for capital punishment, that we may live in peace. And I hate to tell you, but according to the Law, if a person is found guilty through "due process," it is as if they are guilty. No blame is attached to those who carry out the sentences of society.
Now, run along. Find a new little hobby horse to play on.
I did not include Love Thy Neighbor as socialist. I listed my examples in my first post. Like the others you have not refuted them as socialist ideals. Is it coveting by the poor or hungry if we all get together and do what Jesus said? Neither is it stealing on their part. Your argument fails to impress because it is off point.
Actually, Jesus would refrain from voting in our elections for the same reason why Queen Elizabeth refrains from voting in the British House of Commons elections. He is the Sovereign, and thus does not need to be "represented".
As Rom 13:1 makes clear, all of those who are invested with governmental authority, either through elections or some other means, ultimately derive their authority from God. We might think that we are electing them, but God is sovereign, and these things do not just happen by chance -- they hold their office because HE puts them there.
The question should thus be "HWJHUV": "How Would Jesus Have US Vote?"
I would suggest that taking Biblical principles as a whole, the answer would involve attempting to wisely and prayerfully discern that choice that appeared to be most in accord with scriptural principles of righteousness and justice, tempered by mercy and compassion, and that appeared to provide for Christians the maximum peace and freedom to believe, worship, live obediently, proclaim the Gospel, and to make disciples of all peoples. It is understood that because all are flawed, sinful human beings, no political candidate or party will perfectly measure up to these standards. Our obligation is to try to find the side that comes closest.
The early church lived under a socialist economy.
No, a small portion of the early church (pretty much confined to Jerusalem) lived for a time in what was in essence a commune. That is a VOLUNTARY community. That is NOT socialism, for there was no government involvement.
Those who favor free-market economies should not have any problem with people who want to experiment with communal or cooperative economic arrangements as long as they are kept on a strictly voluntary basis. It is the "voluntary" part that makes them fit within a free-market.
"Is it coveting by the poor or hungry if we all get together and do what Jesus said?" This needs to be looked at as follows.
The poor and hungry are there, they will be there always. You were told this by God. If you are a Christian you will naturally give what they need. The measure you give is up to you, it is by your own Free will. Love your neighbor as yourself. You must know and love yourself in order to help. Your will is what determines the measure to give, never the external will of other men. Yours is not theirs to give, that is theft if you do not Freely give it to them.
If you are a Christian your answer to the needs of the unfortunate are driven by the knowledge of the gifts He gave you. What you do glorifies God, your works and your acknowledgement of Him to men. Here is a key, that your works are due to your acknowlegement of Him and the gifts He gave. Including your life and Freedom.
No one has a claim on what is yours, not even the poor and hungry. Socialism is a government of force, there is no out. You are coerced into turning over your will and treasure to the ones in charge. There is no justification for coercion. God told men, by the sweat of your own brow will you live. Under socialism, it is those in charge that recieve all the glory and power for the works of its subjects. There is no justification for theft, including that which is done at the barrel of a vote.
The idea that we can all get together is a unattainable fantasy, we are not one will, but all individuals. There is no such thing as borg. Head God's word, and remember, the poor will always be with you. The promise of socialism is a lie.
You say socialism is evil. Here is your delimma:
Jesus was all good.
He preached principles of socialism.
Therefore, socialism is good.
Help me out here or better yet help yourself out.
Jesus did not preach principles of socialism. Never, anywhere in the Gospels did Jesus advocate governmental ownership and control of the means of production and the equitable distribution of all material goods.
What Jesus did preach was personal accountability to God for our attitudes toward money and material things, and how we used them. We are and will be held accountable to be loving and compassionate toward our neighbor (and "neighbor" is very broadly defined -- see the parable of the Good Samaritan). But that is to be VOLUNTARY compassion and charity. Advocating governmental control of the economy as a substitute for this mandated voluntary charity is actually a type of heresy.
Far from being good, socialism is evil. It is not even too much of a stretch to claim that socialism, all governments that implement it, and all political figures that advocate it, deserve to be called "antichrists", for all are antithetical to Christ and His teachings.
But we in what's left of America have become conditioned over the decades to think of "our" government as The King - when in fact that's exactly what the founders wanted to prevent by giving us a Constitutional Republic. We the People ARE the King. Our "representatives" are supposed to be our employess, not our rulers. They (and most of us) have forgotten that.
Actually, it is Jesus Christ who is King, We the People are His subjects, and He has given us (temporarilly, for "as long as we can keep it", as Benj. Franklin said) the privilege of selecting public servants even more privileged to run HIS government for US.
How very much things have gotten turned around, indeed!
a small portion of the early church (pretty much confined to Jerusalem) lived for a time in what was in essence a commune.
Some commune -- at least 5000 people -- with the kind of problems that government's have regarding fair treatment of minority members, etc. The early church was patterned after the communities of the Essenes who pretty much ignored the secular governments until they attracted the attention of the Romans and were killed and scattered.
I don't think Christians are to have much of a relationship with the government at all. The Bible recommends no particular economic or political models. Monarchies, Republics, Democracies, etc were all in existence during that time, and none are recognized as anything but a hinderance to doing God's will. Jesus would not have participated in governmental organization. He had other priorities. End of my contribution. I don't do extended religious discussion on FR.
Russert persisted: "And what would Jesus think of the death penalty?"
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, notthe least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law untl everything is accomplished." Matt. 5:17-18
"Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultry. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" "No one, sir," she said. "Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin." (John 8:4-11)
Contrary to the anti-death penalty folks, the passage from John does not teach that Jesus was opposed to the death penalty. What he WAS opposed to was injustice. Hypocrisy is a particularly ugly form of injustice. He undoubtedly perceived that all of the men ready to stone the woman were just as guilty, and thus just as deserving of the death penalty, as she was. It was the fact that the death penalty was being applied unequally, and thus unjustly, that he opposed.
In principle, Jesus would not be opposed to the death penalty. In practice, He would be very much opposed to a system that unjustly and unequally executed some criminals while others were let off the hook. He would especially be opposed to any system that was so flawed as to permit a real possibility of innocent people being executed. He would not say that we shouldn't have a death penalty. But He would challenge us to examine ourselves and our system.
I don't recall a distinction between government and individual. Are you proposing he wanted us to help but not collectively when he would say these things to groups of people?
As Rom 13:1 makes clear, all of those who are invested with governmental authority, either through elections or some other means, ultimately derive their authority from God. We might think that we are electing them, but God is sovereign, and these things do not just happen by chance -- they hold their office because HE puts them there.
You are using this passage out of context. What your quote implies is that God is illogical and a beast!
From the beginning men were Free. By there own brow they were to live. Men of their own Free will, challeged the sovereignty of the others and violated the sanctity of the very gifts that God gave the others. They did this for there own Glory and power. The authority God refers to in the passages of Paul and before Pilate was the power of men to choose between good and evil.
All will be judged. If you wish to become a slave in the name of God, what glory have you given Him? Glorify the Lord, learn what He has taught and go out and do good. By your fruit you will be judged. When you return to Him and He asks you what you have done with your gifts, do you wish to tell Him, you were a slave! Do good, in His name, and He will rejoice and the yeild of your works. For the yeild be be greater than you have done on your own. Don't preach slavery, preach life, Freedom and happiness. Make it come about. If you are hindered by those that attempt to usurp your will and the Glory of God, Have no fear, for as I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, the Lord is with me. By your works you will be judged.
Sorry, I forgot. The very idea that God put the rapist-in-chief in charge of anyone is an abomination! He was put there by the dark powers of deception and greed that are found in men! Not God! God is logical and Good. The klintonistas are a pack of wolves that prey on the lives and works of other men. They should be opposed with every once of your will and physical strength. If you fail, God will ask will look at your record on earth and find you submitted to the rapist-in-chief!
What's all these dead babies He'll say!!!What are all those tears I see!!!What do you mean you submitted? Where did you get that from?
I don't recall a distinction between government and individual. Are you proposing he wanted us to help but not collectively when he would say these things to groups of people?
I am proposing that there is a big difference between forced and voluntary action. Voluntary action can be either individual or collective. People voluntarilly join together to accomplish some cooperative task all the time, and lots of time there are absolutely no economic incentives or exchanges involved in the process. I'm saying that this is NOT socialism. Socialism by definition involves the government forcing people to do things. You may find some collective activities that look very much the same under both systems, but the difference is that under socialism, the collective action is not voluntary, but forced, and thus most likely the participants in the collective action don't really WANT to do it.
Most of what Jesus taught had to do with heart attitudes. He had a lot to say about people's outward behavior differing from the inward reality. It was that inward reality that He was especially concerned about. If Jesus had anything at all to say about collective action to accomplish some good, compassionate ends, further digging into the scriptures will reveal that His real concern was always that this be done voluntarilly, out of a genuine positive willingness. Socialistic governmental force is inherently antithetical to this, which is why you will find nothing in the Gospels to support socialism -- if both the scriptures and socialism are rightly understood.
Calvin said that when God desires to judge a nation, He sends them wicked rulers.
As far as I am concerned, this goes far toward explaining "why" we have Bill Clinton.
A democratictically established socialist government would be the ultimate manifestation of Jesus's teachings. Imagine a whole country of christian giving. Centralized so that one area's poor don't get left out.
I've had my fun. You guys can explain it anyway you want. Best guess is that whichever way Jesus votes, he'll use an absentee ballot. Good night and last word to you, if you choose.
Jesus never became involved personally in civil matters. He stuck to the business that brought Him here, lighting the path to salvation and redemption, ie, spiritual matters.
If that's a belief of Calvinism and your of that belief, OK. I don't believe He judges nations He judges the individuals He created. He did not create nations with the power of will, He created men.
Sorry, I left the quotes out of the previous post.
That's right, Isaiah said God thought nothing of nations, only of men. I don't remember the passage. Jesus said give unto ceasar what is ceasar's..., but whatever he had was coerced. ( stolen, with various justifications )
Some commune -- at least 5000 people -- with the kind of problems that government's have regarding fair treatment of minority members, etc. The early church was patterned after the communities of the Essenes who pretty much ignored the secular governments until they attracted the attention of the Romans and were killed and scattered.
Yes, but my point was simply that it WAS voluntary, not governmental, and thus not "socialism."
I don't think Christians are to have much of a relationship with the government at all.
But if Jesus is Lord of all of life, how can we claim to be His disciples while carving out this huge section of life and saying that He has noting to do with it?
The Bible recommends no particular economic or political models. Monarchies, Republics, Democracies, etc were all in existence during that time, and none are recognized as anything but a hinderance to doing God's will.
The Bible doesn't specify a particular system (except for the Israelites under Moses), but there are plenty of basic principles that wise and godly people can and have applied to come up with good systems. Our own constitution was one such example. All such systems fall short of perfect conformance to God's will, yet some do better than others. It is our responsibility to try to exercise whatever influence has been entrusted to us to make our system come as close as possible.
Jesus would not have participated in governmental organization. He had other priorities.
Yes, but for somewhat different reasons than you might expect. He would not participate in human government because He is the sovereign ruler over it already. His participation is indirect, because He entrusted to us the privilege of having some say in the running of our national government -- a rare privilege from a global and historical perspective, and not one we should take for granted. Part of His "other priorities" is not to establish a kingdom of this world, but rather to train up by experience a people fit and ready to be subjects of His kingdom in the world to come. THAT is why we SHOULD be involved in government and politics.
ANY WAY HE WANTS TO!!!
"I don't believe He judges nations."
What was all that business in Babylon? The handwriting on the wall said, "Your kingdom (nation) is weighed in the balance, and found wanting." Next day, Babylon fell and the king was dead.
If that's a belief of Calvinism and your of that belief, OK. I don't believe He judges nations He judges the individuals He created. He did not create nations with the power of will, He created men.
"The LORD is at your right hand;
he will crush kings on the day of his wrath.
He will judge the nations, heaping up the dead
and crushing the rulers of the whole earth."
Psalm 110:5-6
Kingdoms are: The king, his men and the subjects.
Daniel 5,
The writing on the wall was Meme, Mene, Tekel, Pares
Meaning:
God has numbered your days(the king's) and brought them to an end.
Tekel: You have been weighed on the scales and found wanting
Peres: Your kingdom divided and given to the Medes and Persions.
All these were accomplished by the acts of men. The kindom itself is only due t the relationship of men. w/o men there is no kingdom. God judges the acts of men, not kingdoms.
The kingdom did not set itself against heaven, Belshazar did.
Yes, I just think nations means: multitudes of individuals to be judged.
"I think He'd be smiling coming out of the polling place on Nov. 7, having voted for Bush."
I beg to differ, and differ strongly. Just when was it that Jesus was on the side of the powerful and the wealthy and the oppressors? When did he speak in support of people who sought to pollute the earth? When did he praise those who use the excuse of bureaucracy to keep food out of the mouths of hungry children? When did he speak a parable indicating that it was okay for little brown-skinned children to scratch a hole in the dirt to defecate and never be visited by the man who holds the power to change their lives? Which of Jesus' parables allows leaders to lie about their adversaries to the point of suggesting mental illness? Were the Fruits of the Spirit rewritten to exclude longsuffering and gentleness and include deceit and corruption? Was the scripture "Pride goeth before a fall" struck from the Bible?
No, no. Jesus knows G.W. for what he is. He wouldn't be voting with or without a smile, but he WILL be watching. "Be sure your sin will find you out" ought to scare the bejabbers out of George.
Now, run along. Find a new little hobby horse to play on.
Must I? This one is so amusing.
HE WOULD BE MURDERED BY THE RAT FINK'S GESTAPO..
The very idea that God put the rapist-in-chief in charge of anyone is an abomination!
What do we make of Isaiah chapter 3:4-5 regarding the judgment of Judah?
"And I will give children to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them. And the people shall be oppressed, every one by another, and every one by his neighbor: the child shall behave himself proudly against the ancient, and the base against the honorable."
While we're not exactly talking a rapist-in-chief here, we are talking about God installing rulers who are immature as a judgment upon a people.
Isaiah 3:3-4 is but many stories of the judgement of men during their time on earth. This is a story about individuals. There is the group that remains faithful to God and those that do not.
Here is a passage from Isaiah 3:9 "The look on their faces testifies against them; they parade their sin like Sodom; they do not hide it. Woe to them! They have brought disaster upon themselves."
God does not do these things, men do. Each man is responsible for his own actions. Notice the end of this passage: They brought it on themselves. These are individuals that brought on their own disaster, God did not do this.
Isaiah 3:10 says, "Tell the righteous it will be well with them, for they will enjoy the fruit of there deeds." Those that do good are not punished by God either. They benefit from their ways and actions.
In any case God does not interfere with the affairs of this earth. In this world all good things come from men, and all bad things come from men. God does not rule any man, men are Free to determine there own works and destiny.
Where is the nation in all this? Nowhere, God does not care about nations, he cares about men. All of a man's thoughts and actions are judged on an individual basis; never on the basis of whether the man was a member of a group. Some Israelites put the kids in charge, God did not. In the case of the klintonistas, some put them in charge, but they are not in charge of me and some others I am sure.
There is only one authority and that is the authority that Jesus recognized. It is the Father. All other authorities are a sham.
Ever watch Seinfeld?
Good point!!!! Jesus, the King of Kings certainly does not need representation! I think yours is the soundest reply yet!
Obviously, Jesus would vote for the only candidate who is a member of the one, holy apostolic church: Mr. Buchanan.
A better question:
Would Jesus vote?
I often wonder about that. I doubt He would participate in the political process if given the chance. Too busy leading by example. Too strongly opposed to the use of force.
Yes, why?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
[
Top
|
Latest Posts
|
Latest Articles
|
Self Search
|
Add Bookmark
|
Post
|
Abuse
|
Help!
]
FreeRepublic , LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 Forum Version 2.0a Copyright © 1999 Free Republic, LLC |
