Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Joe Bryant

Christians and Faith and Politics - Thoughts?

82 posts in this topic

Not sure there's a more explosive combination than religion and politics. So what could possibly go wrong here, right?

But I thought this article from Tim Keller was interesting.

Wondering what you guys think?

Quote

 

How Do Christians Fit Into the Two-Party System? They Don’t

The historical Christian positions on social issues don’t match up with contemporary political alignments.

By Timothy Keller

Mr. Keller is the founder of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York.

 

What should the role of Christians in politics be? More people than ever are asking that question. Christians cannot pretend they can transcend politics and simply “preach the Gospel.” Those who avoid all political discussions and engagement are essentially casting a vote for the social status quo. American churches in the early 19th century that did not speak out against slavery because that was what we would now call “getting political” were actually supporting slavery by doing so. To not be political is to be political.

The Bible shows believers as holding important posts in pagan governments — think of Joseph and Daniel in the Old Testament. Christians should be involved politically as a way of loving our neighbors, whether they believe as we do or not. To work for better public schools or for a justice system not weighted against the poor or to end racial segregation requires political engagement. Christians have done these things in the past and should continue to do so.

Nevertheless, while believers can register under a party affiliation and be active in politics, they should not identify the Christian church or faith with a political party as the only Christian one. There are a number of reasons to insist on this.

One is that it gives those considering the Christian faith the strong impression that to be converted, they need not only to believe in Jesus but also to become members of the (fill in the blank) Party. It confirms what many skeptics want to believe about religion — that it is merely one more voting bloc aiming for power.

 

 

Rest of article hidden here - I just didn't want to make it a super long post:

Another reason not to align the Christian faith with one party is that most political positions are not matters of biblical command but of practical wisdom. This does not mean that the church can never speak on social, economic and political realities, because the Bible often does. Racism is a sin, violating the second of the two great commandments of Jesus, to “love your neighbor.” The biblical commands to lift up the poor and to defend the rights of the oppressed are moral imperatives for believers. For individual Christians to speak out against egregious violations of these moral requirements is not optional.

However, there are many possible ways to help the poor. Should we shrink government and let private capital markets allocate resources, or should we expand the government and give the state more of the power to redistribute wealth? Or is the right path one of the many possibilities in between? The Bible does not give exact answers to these questions for every time, place and culture.


I know of a man from Mississippi who was a conservative Republican and a traditional Presbyterian. He visited the Scottish Highlands and found the churches there as strict and as orthodox as he had hoped. No one so much as turned on a television on a Sunday. Everyone memorized catechisms and Scripture. But one day he discovered that the Scottish Christian friends he admired were (in his view) socialists. Their understanding of government economic policy and the state’s responsibilities was by his lights very left-wing, yet also grounded in their Christian convictions. He returned to the United States not more politically liberal but, in his words, “humbled and chastened.” He realized that thoughtful Christians, all trying to obey God’s call, could reasonably appear at different places on the political spectrum, with loyalties to different political strategies.

Another reason Christians these days cannot allow the church to be fully identified with any particular party is the problem of what the British ethicist James Mumford calls “package-deal ethics.” Increasingly, political parties insist that you cannot work on one issue with them if you don’t embrace all of their approved positions.

This emphasis on package deals puts pressure on Christians in politics. For example, following both the Bible and the early church, Christians should be committed to racial justice and the poor, but also to the understanding that sex is only for marriage and for nurturing family. One of those views seems liberal and the other looks oppressively conservative. The historical Christian positions on social issues do not fit into contemporary political alignments.


So Christians are pushed toward two main options. One is to withdraw and try to be apolitical. The second is to assimilate and fully adopt one party’s whole package in order to have your place at the table. Neither of these options is valid. In the Good Samaritan parable told in the Gospel of Luke, Jesus points us to a man risking his life to give material help to someone of a different race and religion. Jesus forbids us to withhold help from our neighbors, and this will inevitably require that we participate in political processes. If we experience exclusion and even persecution for doing so, we are assured that God is with us (Matthew 5:10-11) and that some will still see our “good deeds and glorify God” (1 Peter 2:11-12). If we are only offensive or only attractive to the world and not both, we can be sure we are failing to live as we ought.

The Gospel gives us the resources to love people who reject both our beliefs and us personally. Christians should think of how God rescued them. He did it not by taking power but by coming to earth, losing glory and power, serving and dying on a cross. How did Jesus save? Not with a sword but with nails in his hands.

Timothy Keller, founder of the Redeemer Presbyterian churches in New York City, is the author of “Prodigal Prophet: Jonah and the Mystery of God’s Mercy,” from which this essay is adapted.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTopinion), and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is why I am proud of my former church for declaring from the pulpit that there will not be an official position held by the organization as a collective. :thumbup: 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Christians, atheists, agnostics, satanists, wiccans, muslims, jews, hindus...,come one come all just remember that your faith, belief, grounding doesn't instill in you an infallible omnipotence and please act accordingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this

However, there are many possible ways to help the poor. Should we shrink government and let private capital markets allocate resources, or should we expand the government and give the state more of the power to redistribute wealth? Or is the right path one of the many possibilities in between? The Bible does not give exact answers to these questions for every time, place and culture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 American churches in the early 19th century that did not speak out against slavery because that was what we would now call “getting political” were actually supporting slavery by doing so.

This is such a ridiculous statement.  It infers that you needed to be Christian to speak out against slavery.  You only need to be *moral* to speak out against any evil.  You can be a Christian and speak out as a person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"He returned to the United States not more politically liberal but, in his words, “humbled and chastened.” He realized that thoughtful Christians, all trying to obey God’s call, could reasonably appear at different places on the political spectrum, with loyalties to different political strategies."

This part sums up what I think is wrong with religion in politics and quite frankly a lot of the general attitude in politics.  Since this is about religion I will ignore the 2nd part.

I feel like both sides have done a good job in the past picking and choosing which parts of the Bible they want to emphasize which shows their team is "right".  Jesus taught to love God and love thy neighbor as thyself. "On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."  Whether you believe in Jesus or not is irrelevant - if you do, you have right in this book that loving your neighbor as thyself is more important than all the laws.  Many, many people ignore this and immediately jump to their issue du jour - gay rights, abortion, immigration.  And then not only do many do that but they go a step further and actively break the commandment.  Not only do they hate the sin but they hate the sinner.  Again, whether you believe in Jesus doesn't matter, if you do, love the sinner, love the deplorables, love the Tea Party, love Trump, love Clinton. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I recall the stories correctly Christ occasionally stood against power brokers, bankers, and guardians of the community's morality.  I seem to recall that he tossed money lenders from the temple and stopped (shamed) the self-righteous from stoning a woman to death for apparent violation of community mores.

I seem to recall Daniel speaking truth to power, if one finds the Old Book relevant to Christians. 

Acting on conscience shaped by religion  is a good thing, in my estimation, presuming one is not a sociopath.  Deluding oneself that one is acting on conscience when one is self-righteous and only interested in power and ignoring the core meaning of the teachings of Christ to glom on unnaturally to one or two lessons which lack meaning when disassociated from the greater context, well not so good in my estimation. 

Anything I write here should be taken with many grains of salt.  Though I was raised with some exposure to the Good Book I am no Christian and cannot speak for them.  I am a flawed, weak, and often hypocritical man who should be dismissed out of hand and if, occasionally, I strike some cord that is just an example of a blind squirrel finding a few nuts.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One could easily make the argument that western European countries, who are generally less apt to describe themselves as avid Christians, nonetheless do a better job at the macro level of caring for the most vulnerable in their societies than we do here. Yes, it's one thing to care at a local, personal level but perhaps asking American Christians to expand that level of concern to a national level appears to be a bridge too far. Why aren't our Christians better Christians than European seculars?

Edited by roadkill1292
8 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, AAABatteries said:

"He returned to the United States not more politically liberal but, in his words, “humbled and chastened.” He realized that thoughtful Christians, all trying to obey God’s call, could reasonably appear at different places on the political spectrum, with loyalties to different political strategies."

This part sums up what I think is wrong with religion in politics and quite frankly a lot of the general attitude in politics.  Since this is about religion I will ignore the 2nd part.

I feel like both sides have done a good job in the past picking and choosing which parts of the Bible they want to emphasize which shows their team is "right".  Jesus taught to love God and love thy neighbor as thyself. "On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."  Whether you believe in Jesus or not is irrelevant - if you do, you have right in this book that loving your neighbor as thyself is more important than all the laws.  Many, many people ignore this and immediately jump to their issue du jour - gay rights, abortion, immigration.  And then not only do many do that but they go a step further and actively break the commandment.  Not only do they hate the sin but they hate the sinner.  Again, whether you believe in Jesus doesn't matter, if you do, love the sinner, love the deplorables, love the Tea Party, love Trump, love Clinton. 

The shortest conversation you'll have with a Christian who's really not living by the teachings of Christ is to ask said person what action of our President's can you envision Jesus taking himself.  It goes silent and the subject is changed.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, roadkill1292 said:

One could easily make the argument that western European countries, who are generally less apt to describe themselves as avid Christians, nonetheless do a better job at the macro level of caring for the most vulnerable in their societies than we do here. Yes, it's one thing to care at a local, personal level but perhaps asking American Christians to expand that level of concern to a national level appears to be a bridge too far. Why aren't our Christians better Christians than European seculars?

I think the easy answers are:

1. The size of our country versus theirs

2. The amount of time we've existed as a nation versus most of them.

On the first, there's still large areas of the country where it's mostly white and mostly evangelical.  It's not always easy to expand that to groups/areas that you aren't close to or familiar with.

On the second, I think we've made good but very slow progress - I think we all get impatient but need to realize that progress is still progress.  Take a small example of interracial dating and marriage.  This was basically nonexistent not too long ago and now a large portion of the nation don't even think twice about it.  It's not even really a topic of discussion any more.  We've moved on to gay marriage and transgender rights.  At some point those too will become the norm but unfortunately it takes time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The Commish said:

The shortest conversation you'll have with a Christian who's really not living by the teachings of Christ is to ask said person what action of our President's can you envision Jesus taking himself.  It goes silent and the subject is changed.

"He's a Republican!"   ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, roadkill1292 said:

 Why aren't our Christians better Christians than European seculars?

That is a fantastic question. 

As a Christian, I am primarily concerned politically with the "orphan and the widow" or the oppressed. Christ stood against power brokers and the oppressors, and I'd rather stand with him. If the other people standing with the people Christ stood with happen to be secular atheists, I'm proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with them in defense of the poor, the sick, and the marginalized, and I am thankful for their Christ-likeness. 

Edited by proninja
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, AAABatteries said:
5 minutes ago, The Commish said:

The shortest conversation you'll have with a Christian who's really not living by the teachings of Christ is to ask said person what action of our President's can you envision Jesus taking himself.  It goes silent and the subject is changed.

"He's a Republican!"   ;)

I think this is probably one of the things that is hardest for followers to accept.  If we're being honest....in today's world with today's political definitions, he'd be labeled a Republican only if all the other labels were taken away.  He'd be either a Democrat or a Libertarian before he were a Republican.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, proninja said:

That is a fantastic question. 

As a Christian, I am primarily concerned politically with the "orphan and the widow" or the oppressed. Christ stood against power brokers and the oppressors, and I'd rather stand with him. If the other people standing with the people Christ stood with happen to be secular atheists, I'm proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with them in defense of the poor, the sick, and the marginalized, and I am thankful for their Christ-likeness. 

Yeah, I'm not particularly comfortable with Christians standing by any orphans.  Or widows for that matter.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Christianity gave slaves their freedom. Yes, some secularists were involved, and yes some Christians supported slavery, but the abolitionist movement was a Christian movement, and without the Quakers, Congregationalists, northern Baptists and Methodists it never would have happened. That’s simply a fact of history. 

Likewise, the Civil Rights movement was largely a Christian movement, though again Jews and secularists were involved. But it was mainly churches, Black and white, who gave this country integration. 

However, in the last 50 years or so, the only large scale and significant Christian movement in this country has been the religious right, and at least from a progressive perspective, they are more about limiting freedoms than they are increasing them (though of course they would strongly disagree with this point of view.) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Joe Bryant said:

Not sure there's a more explosive combination than religion and politics. So what could possibly go wrong here, right?

But I thought this article from Tim Keller was interesting.

Wondering what you guys think?

Rest of article hidden here - I just didn't want to make it a super long post:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

Another reason not to align the Christian faith with one party is that most political positions are not matters of biblical command but of practical wisdom. This does not mean that the church can never speak on social, economic and political realities, because the Bible often does. Racism is a sin, violating the second of the two great commandments of Jesus, to “love your neighbor.” The biblical commands to lift up the poor and to defend the rights of the oppressed are moral imperatives for believers. For individual Christians to speak out against egregious violations of these moral requirements is not optional.

However, there are many possible ways to help the poor. Should we shrink government and let private capital markets allocate resources, or should we expand the government and give the state more of the power to redistribute wealth? Or is the right path one of the many possibilities in between? The Bible does not give exact answers to these questions for every time, place and culture.


I know of a man from Mississippi who was a conservative Republican and a traditional Presbyterian. He visited the Scottish Highlands and found the churches there as strict and as orthodox as he had hoped. No one so much as turned on a television on a Sunday. Everyone memorized catechisms and Scripture. But one day he discovered that the Scottish Christian friends he admired were (in his view) socialists. Their understanding of government economic policy and the state’s responsibilities was by his lights very left-wing, yet also grounded in their Christian convictions. He returned to the United States not more politically liberal but, in his words, “humbled and chastened.” He realized that thoughtful Christians, all trying to obey God’s call, could reasonably appear at different places on the political spectrum, with loyalties to different political strategies.

Another reason Christians these days cannot allow the church to be fully identified with any particular party is the problem of what the British ethicist James Mumford calls “package-deal ethics.” Increasingly, political parties insist that you cannot work on one issue with them if you don’t embrace all of their approved positions.

This emphasis on package deals puts pressure on Christians in politics. For example, following both the Bible and the early church, Christians should be committed to racial justice and the poor, but also to the understanding that sex is only for marriage and for nurturing family. One of those views seems liberal and the other looks oppressively conservative. The historical Christian positions on social issues do not fit into contemporary political alignments.


So Christians are pushed toward two main options. One is to withdraw and try to be apolitical. The second is to assimilate and fully adopt one party’s whole package in order to have your place at the table. Neither of these options is valid. In the Good Samaritan parable told in the Gospel of Luke, Jesus points us to a man risking his life to give material help to someone of a different race and religion. Jesus forbids us to withhold help from our neighbors, and this will inevitably require that we participate in political processes. If we experience exclusion and even persecution for doing so, we are assured that God is with us (Matthew 5:10-11) and that some will still see our “good deeds and glorify God” (1 Peter 2:11-12). If we are only offensive or only attractive to the world and not both, we can be sure we are failing to live as we ought.

The Gospel gives us the resources to love people who reject both our beliefs and us personally. Christians should think of how God rescued them. He did it not by taking power but by coming to earth, losing glory and power, serving and dying on a cross. How did Jesus save? Not with a sword but with nails in his hands.

Timothy Keller, founder of the Redeemer Presbyterian churches in New York City, is the author of “Prodigal Prophet: Jonah and the Mystery of God’s Mercy,” from which this essay is adapted.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTopinion), and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.

 

 

Jesus would never have joined a political party. His Kingdom was “not of this world”.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, shader said:

Jesus would never have joined a political party. His Kingdom was “not of this world”.  

Probably true but one party would have tried at least a little to heed his calls to care for the most vulnerable of our neighbors while the other one would have contracted for a new line of fighter jets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the good conversation folks.

As to Keller's point in the article of how today's Christians in the US should be involved or not politically, does that make sense? Agree, disagree?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, timschochet said:

Christianity gave slaves their freedom. Yes, some secularists were involved, and yes some Christians supported slavery, but the abolitionist movement was a Christian movement, and without the Quakers, Congregationalists, northern Baptists and Methodists it never would have happened. That’s simply a fact of history. 

Likewise, the Civil Rights movement was largely a Christian movement, though again Jews and secularists were involved. But it was mainly churches, Black and white, who gave this country integration. 

However, in the last 50 years or so, the only large scale and significant Christian movement in this country has been the religious right, and at least from a progressive perspective, they are more about limiting freedoms than they are increasing them (though of course they would strongly disagree with this point of view.) 

It's true. There were Christians on both sides of the slavery debate, and since it wasn't very long ago we can point to the particular protestant traditions of that time and draw a straight line to churches today. 

Guess what side of the slavery argument the ancestors of most conservative evangelical churches were in? 

Keller's denomination only renounced their history with racism in the last year or two. And it was not an easy decision. They had to put it off a year from when it was first an issue at their general assembly. 

Edited by proninja

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, proninja said:

It's true. There were Christians on both sides of the slavery debate, and since it wasn't very long ago we can point to the particular protestant traditions of that time and draw a straight line to churches today. 

Guess what side of the slavery argument the ancestors of most conservative evangelical churches were in? 

I would guess: southern- pro slavery, northern- anti-slavery. 

 

ETA- I know the Baptist church broke into two churches on this very issue. 

Edited by timschochet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I would guess: southern- pro slavery, northern- anti-slavery. 

 

ETA- I know the Baptist church broke into two churches on this very issue. 

Presbyterians experienced a similar schism - not completely over racial justice but it was a part. 

Now imagine those southern churches formed denominations that didn't just stay in the south. Some of them planted churches in New York they called redeemeer.

Edited by proninja

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that whatever you believe it is better to focus on the actionable aspects of your religion as opposed to the aspects intended to deny others the right to action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

Thanks for the good conversation folks.

As to Keller's point in the article of how today's Christians in the US should be involved or not politically, does that make sense? Agree, disagree?

 

I think everyone should be involved politically.  Even if that just means educating yourself about issues and then voting.  I think it's a civic duty to do both.

Edited by AAABatteries

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

Thanks for the good conversation folks.

As to Keller's point in the article of how today's Christians in the US should be involved or not politically, does that make sense? Agree, disagree?

 

I agree and disagree.  I know, shocker.

We (Christians) should be politically active, but I wouldn't necessarily say we have to be because of our faith.  We should be because our form of government demands it.  And as for the argument that supporting one party thereby assimilates your political ideals into the entire platform, I wholeheartedly reject that.  I know that is an easy argument to make, and one that is made in various forms just about anytime the topic comes up.  But I can certainly be a Republican and not agree with the whole platform or vice versa with the Democrats.  And while my vote for an R or a D might necessarily also include some level of support for an entire platform, I can certainly make my voice known that I will not support certain specific policies or practices.  

I think this writing focuses on the big picture macro-politics too much without giving attention to the micro-politics of the person in front of you.  Christ didn't feed all the poor and hungry in the country, He fed the people in front of Him.  He didn't wash the feet of every person in Judea, He did it for the people in front of Him.  We need to serve the people in front of us as Christians.  That doesn't mean ignore the big picture and national or even state politics, but it does that mean that we can't ignore the person in front of us.  I think my tribe tends to do that too much and then hides behind interpretations of the Bible that really don't work when they take their arguments to a logical end. Though, I'm sure, there are many who don't like using the words logic and Bible in the same sentence.

A mega church might be a truly awesome worship experience that serves a large community and continues the faith, teaching biblical principals.  But when those same churches have $43 million in revenue and there are still homeless in the same county - that is the problem.  Not who the Senator or President is.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Joe Bryant said:

Thanks for the good conversation folks.

As to Keller's point in the article of how today's Christians in the US should be involved or not politically, does that make sense? Agree, disagree?

 

I think this is entirely up to the Christian. I think the only people who strongly feel on this subject think the answer is yes and they’re already political. As a Catholic I’ve always found it very easy to bifurcate the spiritual realm from the material one. I think maybe some Protestants feel differently because their Christianity imposes some sort of additional social duties on them. I’ve never understood that.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Yankee23Fan said:

A mega church might be a truly awesome worship experience that serves a large community and continues the faith, teaching biblical principals.  But when those same churches have $43 million in revenue and there are still homeless in the same county - that is the problem.  Not who the Senator or President is.

Two issues here

1) The state's failure to provide for it's citizens

2) The hypocrisy of the church practicing other than what they (are supposed to) preach. 

Perhaps it could be an idea to remove the tax exemption for churches and earmark that tax revenue for helping the poor.

Just a suggestion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, shader said:

Jesus would never have joined a political party. His Kingdom was “not of this world”.  

Jesus was a socialist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dedfin said:

Jesus was a socialist

Depends on how we define the term, but Jesus didn't really get into explaining how he thought government should be run. He did speak a lot about what was important to him though, and I don't think it's a big stretch to say he would have voted according to his values if he were in a country that voted in a time where democracy had taken hold. 

Since Jesus' context was so different than ours, I don't think I'd say that Jesus was a member of any modern political movement. I also definitely wouldn't say that he never would have joined a political party. Doing either is making some pretty big assumptions I personally wouldn't feel comfortable making. 

As far as if Christians should be socialists or not, I think it's a fair question. This book is a biography of Helmut Gollwitzer, a 20th century German theologian, and it summarizes Gollwitzer's position that a Christian should also be a socialist. I'm not far enough through it to give an accurate summary of the argument, as the first half is mostly biography, but I'm looking forward to finishing it. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, shader said:
3 hours ago, Dedfin said:

Jesus was a socialist

Incorrect

He wasn't a Christian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, toshiba said:

He wasn't a Christian.

No idea where you’re going with this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm an atheist. I dont believe in any gods. But there is a part of the Bible I agree with completely and it is Jesus speaking directly to what the duties of Christians and to me all of humanity are. He said to attain heaven simply believing in him wasn't enough. He said you must house the homeless, heal the sick, feed the hungry and lift up those imprisoned. He said what you do for the least of you you do for me. It's referred to as the Judgement of Nations. He never mentioned hating anyone or pretending you just hate some sin they conmited in your estimation.  He spoke only of love and caring for everyone. I try to be that kind of person. Not because I expect to gain some reward but because it seems like the right life to live. I wish far more Christians would do the same. But instead they seem very concerned about the mote in their neighbors all the while ignoring the log in their. And gaining power for dominance to push that hateful agenda.

If you want to be the kind of Christian Jesus admitted to heaven and bring that to the political square I welcome you. I'll  support you. I wish you much success. But if you are the other kind i described worried about gaining power to push an amoral, hateful agenda then I will fight you tooth and nail.

Edited by NCCommish
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, shader said:
35 minutes ago, toshiba said:

He wasn't a Christian.

No idea where you’re going with this

I mean, he was a jew. A trained rabbi even. Seems kinda hard to argue he was a part of a religion that necessitates his death to exist.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, NCCommish said:

I'm an atheist. I dont believe in any gods. But there is a part of the Bible I agree with completely and it is Jesus speaking directly to what the duties of Christians and to me all of humanity are. He said to attain heaven simply believing in him wasn't enough. He said you must house the homeless, heal the sick, feed the hungry and lift up those imprisoned. He said what you do for the least of you you do for me. It's referred to as the Judgement of Nations. He never mentioned hating anyone or pretending you just hate some sin they conmited in your estimation.  He spoke only of love and caring for everyone. I try to be that kind of person. Not because I expect to gain some reward but because it seems like the right life to live. I wish far more Christians would do the same. But instead they seem very concerned about the mote in their neighbors all the while ignoring the log in their. And gaining power for dominance to push that hateful agenda.

If you want to be the kind of Christian Jesus admitted to heaven and bring that to the political square I welcome you. I'll  support you. I wish you much success. But if you are the other kind i described worried about gaining power to push an amoral, hateful agenda then I will fight you tooth and nail.

Similarly, I'm a Christian, but if you want to bring Jesus's ethic to the political sphere I'd love to stand and fight with you against those who would care for the rich and powerful over the sick, poor, and immigrant.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, proninja said:
50 minutes ago, shader said:
55 minutes ago, toshiba said:

He wasn't a Christian.

No idea where you’re going with this

I mean, he was a jew. A trained rabbi even. Seems kinda hard to argue he was a part of a religion that necessitates his death to exist.

:goodposting:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, proninja said:

I mean, he was a jew. A trained rabbi even. Seems kinda hard to argue he was a part of a religion that necessitates his death to exist.

I don’t recall arguing that...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, shader said:
32 minutes ago, proninja said:

I mean, he was a jew. A trained rabbi even. Seems kinda hard to argue he was a part of a religion that necessitates his death to exist.

I don’t recall arguing that...

You wondered where I was going with my "Jesus wasn't a Christian" comment.  @proninja stated it perfectly!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, shader said:
37 minutes ago, proninja said:

I mean, he was a jew. A trained rabbi even. Seems kinda hard to argue he was a part of a religion that necessitates his death to exist.

I don’t recall arguing that...

It's true, you were pretty vague. 

Edited by proninja
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, toshiba said:

You wondered where I was going with my "Jesus wasn't a Christian" comment.  @proninja stated it perfectly!

I just didn’t understand why you were going down that path when I never argued that he was or wasn’t a Christian.  Proninja made a good argument, but I don’t know who you guys are arguing with?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, shader said:

I just didn’t understand why you were going down that path when I never argued that he was or wasn’t a Christian.  Proninja made a good argument, but I don’t know who you guys are arguing with?

I'd just ask why you assume we're arguing with you. You posted something unclear and I continued the conversation. I'm not sure what you meant. Stating a fact isn't arguing as near as I can tell, so I wouldn't even call that a good argument. 

Edited by proninja
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.