Attention Christians for Bush

Hey all...

This will look like a really long post since I can't figure the attachment thing out as quickly as I can just paste the text in.

I don't claim to be a Christian, but I thought this was interesting. It's a sort of wake up call to Christians who voted for Bush...

 

Nobody ever said that Christianity today isn't the complete opposite of what Jesus preached...

 

Christian Democrats UNITE!!! We need to stand up and reclaim Christianity from those that teach a twisted,corrupted form of religon based on Calvin and his twisted view of God and return of Christianity to the theological ideas of Jacob Arminius and John and Charles Wesley. I'll explain the differences between the two opposing theologies in a later post.

As for Bush,Jesus did say by their fruits you shall know them.

 

I've recently been engaging someone on the Calvinist vs. Arminian issue. I lean more toward the Calvinist side, so this should be interesting; I look forward to seeing your views on the issue.

 

Too many Christians have made a 'deal with the Devil' in tolerating (and even encouraging) the very powerful and influential 'Fiscal Conservatives'.

These are people constantly interested in maximum 'Free Market' economics.
[As long as Police forces are kept Socialised]

Ultra predatory Capitalism has NOTHING to do with Christianity.
Its actually ANTI CHRISTIAN.

Yet, Sadly.. many Christian 'Right-Wingers' are willing to walk hand in hand with these Capitolists .. and even tout their ideology 'as if' its part and parcel of Social Conservatism.

In my world - Christians would have raising the minimum wage at the top of their list and employee benefits, medicare and safety right behind that!

Oh what roads we travel.

 

Hey Jatom. I'll start a new thread for the Arminianism Versus Calvinism in the next few days look for it in this forum.


"Come let us reason together says the Lord".

 

Please direct me to the book and verse of the Bible where Jesus rounded up a police force and arrested a man at gunpoint for refusing to pay medicare taxes. Jesus was all about charity, but that does NOT translate into forcing other people to provide charity too.

I agree that the social conservatives pervert the Bible for their own xenophobic agenda, but the left-wing economic socialists are no better.

No political party can claim Christianity for itself. The party that most closely follows the teachings of Jesus would be the Libertarians (peace, tolerance, charity, and small government), but they aren't silly enough to claim that Jesus would vote for their guy as many Democrats and Republicans have implied.

 

religon should stay away from politics

 

Not that I like bush, or think that what he does is right..
I can't point you to what jesus said, no, but I can point you to the old testament and the 8 levels of charity, in order of least meritous to most:

1. Giving begrudgingly
2. Giving less that you should, but giving it cheerfully.
3. Giving after being asked
4. Giving before being asked
5. Giving when you do not know the recipient's identity, but the recipient knows your identity
6. Giving when you know the recipient's identity, but the recipient doesn't know your identity
7. Giving when neither party knows the other's identity
8. Enabling the recipient to become self-reliant

He was forced, yes, but the person forced to pay medicare taxes achieved levels 1, 3, and 7 If I was jesus, I'd be happy that forced charity was enforced. The alternative- not helping the poor/sick, better?

 

The Old Testament also says that slavery is good and it's OK to kill your children under some circumstances. I thought that Christians believed that Old Testament values were replaced, rather than enhanced, by New Testament values?

Yes, Jesus was completely opposed to the concept of fighting and forcing people to do things against their will, even when his own life was at stake. I can't see Jesus ever putting a gun to someone's head and demanding that they help his friends.

 

Well, for one, methinks you should look closer at exactly what jesus was preaching. I'm not gonna go into a huge rant on the great fire and re-writing of the bible, or the facts of life at the time of jesus, if you're interested PM me, so I'm just gonna hafta say jesus was an ESSENE. This is undisputed. The essenes believes jesus was the moshiach, or at least some did, jesus certainly believed it, in order to be the moshiach:

" The moshiach will bring about the political and spiritual redemption of the Jewish people by bringing us back to Israel and restoring Jerusalem (Isaiah 11:11-12; Jeremiah 23:8; 30:3; Hosea 3:4-5). He will establish a government in Israel that will be the center of all world government, both for Jews and gentiles (Isaiah 2:2-4; 11:10; 42:1). He will rebuild the Temple and re-establish its worship (Jeremiah 33:18). He will restore the religious court system of Israel and establish Jewish law as the law of the land (Jeremiah 33:15)."
At the time, this was only possible with force, and if you match up the events required for jesus to be the messiah, with what's in the new testament, they do match to an extent (note the compression of time surrounding his triumphial entry). Furthermore, its generally accepted jesus handed out swords to his disciples..I can't be bothered, you probably won't believe me anyway, but the evidence is all there if you look.

 

You do know that the "slavery" mentioned under the Old Testament wasn't the same slavery as that of 1600 to 1800's in America correct?

You do know that (a) Jesus did use force in one instance (John 2:13-16), and (b) the example of Him not using force when His life was at stake cannot be compared to anything we face in life, therefore it is an unfair comparision.

 

Slavery was practiced in the Old Testament Israelite days.. and dont assume its 'condoned' just because its described in the OT.

Worth mentioning.. The 'Slavery' system of the Ancients was much different than the Slave System of the Romans during Jesus Day.

These are very much different than the Slavery practiced in the last century or so.

I find modern slavery the most disgusting - because it pretends not to be slavery.
Of course.. North Americans absolutely ARE building a 'Slave Class' of their own.

It starts by using the University training situation to make a labour force of debtors who have sold themselves into slavery.

It would be hilarious if it were not so sick.

I regress.

Answer: Yes, New Testament Values Over-write Old Testament Laws.

Good Luck explaining that to 60% of the Christians today. Even the Holy Rollers now sit around and base their "Healing and Prophecy' nonsense on Old Testament precedents.

Oh.. and most of them LOVE owning slaves (if they can)

 

Ah yes, the "Health and Wealth Gospel" nonsense. It's a shame that so many Churches now are about 'feel good' messages.

 

Exactly....

 

There are a number of points about slavery in the Bible that really need addressing.

(1) Most people, in defense of biblical ethics, say, "Well, slavery wasn't as bad back then!" They note that many slaves were considered family members, and had a few rights. They also note that individuals sold themselves into slavery sometimes willingly in order to pay off debts they were unable to financially.

The problem with this is that the treatment of slaves during slavery is not the only thing wrong with slavery itself. The lack of self-ownership and corollary problems that arise from this are unethical enough. If you ask any individual if they think slavery is okay, even if the slave is treated nicely, you'll still hear a resounding "NO!!". The problems with this are evident in scripture itself. For non-slaves, the rule is "an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth", while for the death of a slave, the murderer simply must be a fine if he doesn't own the slave. If the murderer is the slave owner, then he is to be punished (but not killed) if the slave dies immediately. But he isn't to be punished if the slave dies later on, because, after all, the slave is still "his property" .

(2) Support for slavery is not only provided in the OT, but Jesus also voices support in numerous places in the NT.

(3) Also, slave treatment in OT times was still based on an individualist foundation. The slave was treated however the owner wished to treat him. So there were surely many cases of brutality and cruelty in these times as well. Even throughout the 1600s-1800s, which everyone agrees was entirely unethical, many American slave owners described their slaves as "members of the family". The point here is that the slaves were only members of the family like a dog would be a member of our family today. Slaves were not equal human beings during OT times, just like during the years of the American slave system. Slaves have always been considered sub-creatures by slave owners, and in the Bible this is no exception.

So no, simply because slavery was more accepted in the past and the slaves were perhaps not treated AS badly, does not mean that slavery back then was "entirely different" to the point that it would escape the unethicality of the concept of slavery itself.

(4) I also find it amusing that you say, "Don't assume it's condoned just because its discussed". It isn't simply discussed, but there are rules laid down about what a slave owner must do in order for his action to be considered ethical. It discusses extensively the ethics involved in slave ownership - e.g. the punishment or non-punishment of a slave owner who murders his slave, the fine to be paid by a non-slave owner who murders a slave, etc. Implicit in all of this is that as long as the slave owner follows these rules set down by the Torah, slavery is A-OK.

(5) In the Bible itself slavery is acknowledged as a disgusting thing for a person to be, and it warns the Israelites against taking their fellow own people as slaves. So this shows that bible slavery was not a walk in the park, and it wasn't considered a nice or good thing to be a slave by the Israelites at all.

If anyone isn't familiar with the verses I'm talking about, look throughout Exodus, Leviticus, and probably (I can't remember) a bit of Deutoronomy.

- Laz

 

Your going to have to give me some references.

Its probably more helpful to start a new Topic on this one - Id like to get more in depth on this one.

I do know that warring tribes (back in the day) would have the winners take the losers as slave labour.
Im not very very familiar with the actual laws instituted in Leviticus for their care etc.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jatom
It's a shame that so many Churches now are about 'feel good' messages.

It's a shame that so many Christian churches are all about new pews and the preacher's suit and the preacher's wife's new facelift/boobjob and the bless-her-heart-her-son-is-smoking-pot-she-must-not-be-living-right sort of gossip that so many churches thrive on... It's a shame that so many christian churches could never possibly be able to offer a "feel good" message because all they have is fear (which is not so "feel good") to keep people stuck in Christianity.

 

Biblical Christians should reject the agendas of both left and right:

WHAT THE DEMOCRATS NEED TO UNDERSTAND,
by Ronald J. Sider

The Democrats are in trouble because there are a lot of voters like me. I have been a registered Democrat for almost 30 years. I have usually voted for Democratic presidential candidates.

But recent Democratic presidential candidates have posed huge problems for Catholics and evangelicals (together they make up about 50% of all voters) who agree with the publicly articulated, official position of the Catholic bishops and (very recently) the National Association of Evangelicals that we should be pro-poor and pro-life, pro-peace and creation care and pro-family.

When you get Democratic presidential candidates who voted against both the Defense of Marriage Act and the Partial-Birth Abortion Act, people like me have problems. Why can’t the Democrats be at least as tolerant of pro-life Democrats at the national level as the Republicans are of pro-choice Republicans? Why can’t the Democrats at least get serious about President Clinton’s position that abortion should be rare? Why can’t the Democrats learn to talk about strengthening marriage both with economic support and ethical values? Why do Democrats leave to the Republicans the task of welcoming faith-based social service providers to a level playing field where they can compete fairly (with no bias for or against) for federal dollars to deliver social services?

Until a few decades ago, a majority of white evangelicals and, until very recently, a majority of Catholics voted Democratic. (The 2004 election was the first time a majority of Catholics voted Republican.)

The Democratic Party needs to ponder carefully the fact that the official position of both the Catholic Bishops and the National Association of Evangelicals (which represents 30 million evangelical Protestants) is what some Catholics call a consistent ethic of life.

The recently adopted “For the Health of the Nation: An Evangelical Call to Civic Responsibility” explicitly declares that “God cares a great deal about the well-being of marriage, the family, the sanctity of human life, justice for the poor, care for creation, peace, freedom and racial justice.” The conclusion? “Faithful evangelical civic engagement must champion a biblically balanced agenda.” Each Presidential election for more than a decade, the Catholic bishops have said almost the same thing.

Polling data (see John C. Green at the Bliss Institute) make it quite clear that large numbers of evangelicals could easily support important parts of the typical Democratic platform on poverty, the environment, and a multilateral foreign policy. More evangelicals favor (43%) than oppose (40%) the government’s spending more money to fight poverty even if that means higher taxes for the middle class! A majority (52%) of evangelicals support “strict rules to support the environment . . . even if they cost jobs or result in higher prices.” Only 31% disagree. And two-to-one (65% vs. 35%) evangelicals prefer a foreign policy where the U.S. “cooperates with international organizations to maintain world peace” rather than takes “the lead in maintaining world peace, using military force if necessary.”

If the Democrats are content to remain a minority party, they can continue embracing extreme positions on things like family and marriage, the sanctity of human life and faith-based initiatives. If they would like to win again, they should ponder the fact that there are millions of evangelical and Catholic voters who prefer Democratic stands on many issues including the tax structure, economic justice, overcoming poverty, and the environment but who also demand a centrist position on family, marriage, and the sanctity of human life.
​

Incidentally, the left-right political divide has no relationship whatsoever to the Calvinism-Arminianism theological debate. Many prominent Christian conservatives (Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Chuck Colson, etc.) are decidedly Arminian.

 

Yeah well, there are members in just about every church who seem only concerned about money and gossip. That's life. It's unfortunate that these people aren't more concerned about the things of God, but of course nobody's perfect, and I'd be flat out lying if I said I represented the Christian image perfectly (Heck, I don't even come close, in fact, the closer I get to God, the more I truly realize just how wicked I am!)

I just don't see this. Many churches are more about teaching how much God wants you to prosper in life (as if it were God's will that everyone be rich), or how warm and fuzzy God will make you feel. Fear? Ha! Just mentioning anything about God exercising some sort of justice, judgment, or wrath turns the stomachs of many practicing Christians (which, depending on the Church, can be far less then 50% of those who actually attend) and would have many would be Christians running from the building! God as Judge, just doesn't fit our image of what God is supposed to be, and fear just isn't what people go to church to here about. This is not to say that "fire and brimstone" churches don't exist, nor is it to say that that is the proper way of handing evangelism, rather that messages are usually tailored to the what people want to hear, rather than what God’s word says.