| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Gilbertus Albans" |
| Date: |
06 Nov 2006 11:04:45 AM |
| Object: |
Simple Question durring the American Elections |
Should Christian vote?
Why?
.
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question durring the American Elections |
06 Nov 2006 12:34:39 PM |
|
|
"Gilbertus Albans" <primemenstat@world.net> wrote in message
news:NWJ3h.1097$9t4.535@trnddc03...
Should Christian vote?
Why?
If he's old enough.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "James" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question durring the American Elections |
16 Dec 2006 11:15:04 AM |
|
|
Gilbertus Albans <primemenstat@world.net>
Re: Simple Question durring the American Elections
Should Christian vote?
Why?
Hello,
The Bible helps to answer that question. John 15:19,
"If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is,
you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the
world. That is why the world hates you." (NIV)
Also James 1:27,
"Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this:
to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself
from being polluted by the world." (NIV)
Jesus Christ, the founder of Christianity, rejected all political
power. John 6:15,
"Jesus, knowing that they intended to come and make him king by force,
withdrew again to a mountain by himself." (NIV)
Jesus plainly told Pilate at John 18:36,
"Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were
of this world, then My servants would be fighting, that I might not be
delivered up to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this
realm."" (NASB)
And Jesus also said that his true followers were also not part of this
world. John 17:16,
"They are no part of the world, just as I am no part of the world."
The disciple James even tells the consequence of being "friends" with
the world. James 4:4,
"You adulterous people, don't you know that friendship with the world
is hatred toward God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world
becomes an enemy of God." (NIV)
Did the early Christians involve themselves in politics?
Professor Robert L.Wilken in "The Christians as the Romans Saw Them"
wrote, "Christians not only refused [Roman] military service but they
would not accept public office nor assume any responsibility for the
governing of the cities".
Edward Gibbon in "History of Christianity" wrote concerning
Christians, "refused to take any active part in the civil
administration or the military defence of the empire,..it was
impossible that the Christians, without renouncing a more sacred duty,
could assume the character of soldiers, of magistrates, or of
princes.".
This is how the early Christians interpreted the Holy Scriptures on
the subject of political involvement. Yes, genuine Christians "do not
belong to the world". They do not want to be an "enemy" of God. They
do not point people to human political governments as the solution to
mankind's problems, but rather to God's theocratic "kingdom", headed
by Jesus Christ.
People knowingly or unknowingly pray for that government by God (God's
kingdom) each time they say what is called the "Lord's prayer". (pray
for God's kingdom to come, etc)
I hope this has helped you.
Sincerely, James
***********************************
Want a FREE home Bible study?
Have Jehovah's Witnesses questions?
Go to the authorized source:
http://www.watchtower.org
***********************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question durring the American Elections |
16 Dec 2006 03:14:21 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 12:15:04 -0500, James <bireda@allvantage.com>
wrote:
Gilbertus Albans <primemenstat@world.net>
Re: Simple Question durring the American Elections
Should Christian vote?
Why?
Jesus Christ, the founder of Christianity
Since Jesus wasn't the founder of Christianity (sane Christians accept
that Paul is the founder), your entire post is suspect.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"The whole religious complexion of the modern world is due
to the absence, from Jerusalem, of a lunatic asylum."
- Havelock Ellis
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question durring the American Elections |
16 Dec 2006 11:26:01 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 12:15:04 -0500, in free.christians
James <bireda@allvantage.com> wrote in
<aq98o2dpd9b4a2acege0ibsfpehg51v06o@4ax.com>:
Gilbertus Albans <primemenstat@world.net>
Re: Simple Question durring the American Elections
Should Christian vote?
Why?
Hello,
The Bible helps to answer that question. John 15:19,
"If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is,
you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the
world. That is why the world hates you." (NIV)
Also James 1:27,
"Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this:
to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself
from being polluted by the world." (NIV)
Jesus Christ, the founder of Christianity, rejected all political
power. John 6:15,
"Jesus, knowing that they intended to come and make him king by force,
withdrew again to a mountain by himself." (NIV)
Jesus plainly told Pilate at John 18:36,
"Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were
of this world, then My servants would be fighting, that I might not be
delivered up to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this
realm."" (NASB)
And Jesus also said that his true followers were also not part of this
world. John 17:16,
"They are no part of the world, just as I am no part of the world."
The disciple James even tells the consequence of being "friends" with
the world. James 4:4,
"You adulterous people, don't you know that friendship with the world
is hatred toward God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world
becomes an enemy of God." (NIV)
Did the early Christians involve themselves in politics?
Professor Robert L.Wilken in "The Christians as the Romans Saw Them"
wrote, "Christians not only refused [Roman] military service but they
would not accept public office nor assume any responsibility for the
governing of the cities".
Refusing military service is clearly a political act.
Edward Gibbon in "History of Christianity" wrote concerning
Christians, "refused to take any active part in the civil
administration or the military defence of the empire,..it was
impossible that the Christians, without renouncing a more sacred duty,
could assume the character of soldiers, of magistrates, or of
princes.".
This is how the early Christians interpreted the Holy Scriptures on
the subject of political involvement. Yes, genuine Christians "do not
belong to the world". They do not want to be an "enemy" of God. They
do not point people to human political governments as the solution to
mankind's problems, but rather to God's theocratic "kingdom", headed
by Jesus Christ.
People knowingly or unknowingly pray for that government by God (God's
kingdom) each time they say what is called the "Lord's prayer". (pray
for God's kingdom to come, etc)
I hope this has helped you.
You didn't actually answer the question. Refusing to vote allows evil to
flourish.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Weatherwax" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question durring the American Elections |
17 Dec 2006 02:33:30 AM |
|
|
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
You didn't actually answer the question. Refusing to vote
allows evil to flourish.
But if Christians are going to vote for the wrong people anyway, wouldn't we
be better off if they didn't vote?
--Wax
.
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question durring the American Elections |
17 Dec 2006 09:40:09 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 08:33:30 GMT, in alt.atheism
"Weatherwax" <Weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote in
<uh7hh.220858$Fi1.133499@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
You didn't actually answer the question. Refusing to vote
allows evil to flourish.
But if Christians are going to vote for the wrong people anyway, wouldn't we
be better off if they didn't vote?
There is that problem. It amazes me that Christians appear willing to
vote for the most immoral, vile, and ruthless characters as long as
those candidates claim to be 'real Christians' and 'pro-life'. Even the
Catholic hierarchy, which had once cared about social issues, has become
incapable of telling good people from bad and now demands that their
parishioners vote for evil people -- as long as the evil people say they
are 'pro-life' or 'against gay marriage' -- despite the evidence that
these folks have not and will not do anything to decrease the number of
abortions in this country.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question durring the American Elections |
17 Dec 2006 10:05:04 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 09:40:09 -0600, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
Even the
Catholic hierarchy, which had once cared about social issues, has become
incapable of telling good people from bad and now demands that their
parishioners vote for evil people -- as long as the evil people say they
are 'pro-life' or 'against gay marriage' -- despite the evidence that
these folks have not and will not do anything to decrease the number of
abortions in this country.
Because once they do, there's no further reason to vote for them. But
the Christapuppets aren't intelligent enough to realize how they're
being played, election after election.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"In matters of faith never trust your own judgment, but always humbly
submit to the decisions of the Holy Church."
(page 77, _A Full Catechism of the Catholic Religion_, Fr. Joseph De
Harbe, S.J.)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Samuel W. Heywood" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question durring the American Elections |
18 Dec 2006 08:57:19 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, Al Klein wrote:
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 09:40:09 -0600, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
Even the
Catholic hierarchy, which had once cared about social issues, has
become incapable of telling good people from bad and now demands
that their parishioners vote for evil people -- as long as the evil
people say they are 'pro-life' or 'against gay marriage' -- despite
the evidence that these folks have not and will not do anything to
decrease the number of abortions in this country.
The Bush administration seems to have done a good job at appointing
federal judges which have a reputation for interpreting the law the
way they are supposed to. The Bush administration is not nominating
for federal judgeships the kind of judges who are thought to have an
activist agenda who abuse their power by legislating from the bench.
As long as a Republican majority is maintained in the Senate the Bush
administration's nominees are likely to continue to be approved.
With more and more judges of high integrity on the bench we will be
seeing a lot less legislation intended to limit or restrict abortions
being declared unconstitutional. Also we will be seeing more and more
pro-abortion legislation being stricken down.
Because once they do, there's no further reason to vote for them. But
the Christapuppets aren't intelligent enough to realize how they're
being played, election after election.
You would see millions more people voting for Democrats if the
Democrats would just back off of their pro-abortion agenda. The main
reason why the so-called "religious right" supports the Republican
Party is due to that party's anti-abortion stance. As judged on the
balance scales belonging to the religious right, the Republican
Party's anti-abortion stance has much heavier weight on the good side
of the scale than the weight of all the bad things the Republicans do
has on the bad side of the scale. When the Democrats are weighed,
the religious right observes that there just aren't enough good things
that the Democrats do that tip the scale to the good side because of
the very heavy weight that hangs on the bad side, and the heaviest
one on the bad side is their pro-abortion stance. The only reason
why the the scales tipped to the bad side for the Republicans in the
last election is because of the scandals which erupted just before
the elections which involved highy prominent Republicans and right
wing religious leaders. Hopefully that was just a temporary offset
and an upset. The Republicans and the right wing religious leaders
will just have to clean up their act and fix the problem by kicking
out their scandal-prone-people, starting with Newt Gingrich, to make
sure that that the Republicans will do well in the next election.
Sam Heywood
-- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question durring the American Elections |
18 Dec 2006 01:43:18 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 09:57:19 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood"
<sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, Al Klein wrote:
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 09:40:09 -0600, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
Even the
Catholic hierarchy, which had once cared about social issues, has
become incapable of telling good people from bad and now demands
that their parishioners vote for evil people -- as long as the evil
people say they are 'pro-life' or 'against gay marriage' -- despite
the evidence that these folks have not and will not do anything to
decrease the number of abortions in this country.
The Bush administration seems to have done a good job at appointing
federal judges which have a reputation for interpreting the law the
way they are supposed to.
"The way I want them to" and "the way they're supposed to" don't mean
the same thing.
The Bush administration is not nominating
for federal judgeships the kind of judges who are thought to have an
activist agenda who abuse their power by legislating from the bench.
No, they're judges who are known to have a Conservative Fundamentalist
Christian activist agenda who abuse their power by legislating from
the bench..
As long as a Republican majority is maintained in the Senate the Bush
administration's nominees are likely to continue to be approved.
Since that's not the case, it's not likely.
With more and more judges of high integrity on the bench we will be
seeing a lot less legislation intended to limit or restrict abortions
That's true.
Also we will be seeing more and more
pro-abortion legislation being stricken down.
Probably by pro-choice judges who, like almost all pro-choicers, are
anti-abortion.
Because once they do, there's no further reason to vote for them. But
the Christapuppets aren't intelligent enough to realize how they're
being played, election after election.
You would see millions more people voting for Democrats if the
Democrats would just back off of their pro-abortion agenda.
I doubt that there are more than 100 pro-abortion sickos in the entire
country.
The main reason why the so-called "religious right" supports the Republican
Party is due to that party's anti-abortion stance.
And its homophobic stance. And its pro-religion stance.
IOW the Religious Reich is a bunch of control freaks.
As judged on the
balance scales belonging to the religious right, the Republican
Party's anti-abortion stance has much heavier weight on the good side
of the scale than the weight of all the bad things the Republicans do
has on the bad side of the scale.
What they're too stupid to see, though, (and you're also too stupid to
see it) is that the Republicans will NEVER eliminate abortion on
demand. Once they do, there's no reason for the RR to go to the
trouble of voting. Their one and only issue (and a Constitutional ban
on same sex marriage, to nail it down) would disappear.
The administration will USE the religious to vote them in - then laugh
at them (we know that's true) and not pass the legislation the
religious thought they were going to get by voting Republican. Over
and over, election after election.
The only reason
why the the scales tipped to the bad side for the Republicans in the
last election is because of the scandals which erupted just before
the elections which involved highy prominent Republicans and right
wing religious leaders. Hopefully that was just a temporary offset
and an upset.
It's the gift that keeps on giving. Ted Haggard is only the
beginning. The dominoes are starting to fall.
The Republicans and the right wing religious leaders
will just have to clean up their act and fix the problem by kicking
out their scandal-prone-people
That would mean an almost 100% Democratic Congress.
starting with Newt Gingrich, to make
sure that that the Republicans will do well in the next election.
How can they "do well" when they're all kicked out of the party?
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"Atheism is the world of reality, it is reason, it is freedom. Atheism is human
concern, and intellectual honesty to a degree that the religious mind cannot
begin to understand. And yet it is more than this. Atheism is not an old
religion, it is not a new and coming religion, in fact it is not, and never has
been, a religion at all. The definition of Atheism is magnificent in its
simplicity: Atheism is merely the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
[Atheism: An Affirmative View, by Emmett F. Fields]
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Samuel W. Heywood" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question durring the American Elections |
18 Dec 2006 06:43:24 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006, Al Klein wrote:
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 09:57:19 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood"
<sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, Al Klein wrote:
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 09:40:09 -0600, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
<snip>
By malicious editing, snipping out the last three words of my sentence,
you deliberately misrepresented what I said by quoting only this part:
With more and more judges of high integrity on the bench we will be
seeing a lot less legislation intended to limit or restrict abortions
To which you responded
That's true.
Why did you snip off the last three words of my sentence?
Anyone taking a look at my post which you are replying to will see
that what I said was:
"With more and more judges of high integrity on the bench we will
see a lot less legislation intended to limit or restrict abortions
being declared unconsitutional"
And that is true.
And anyone can see that it is also true that what you have done
has earned for you a very low mark for integrity.
Sam Heywood
-- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question durring the American Elections |
18 Dec 2006 07:12:20 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 19:43:24 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood"
<sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006, Al Klein wrote:
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 09:57:19 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood"
<sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, Al Klein wrote:
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 09:40:09 -0600, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
<snip>
By malicious editing, snipping out the last three words of my sentence,
you deliberately misrepresented what I said by quoting only this part:
With more and more judges of high integrity on the bench we will be
seeing a lot less legislation intended to limit or restrict abortions
To which you responded
That's true.
Why did you snip off the last three words of my sentence?
Because it was correct until the last three words.
Anyone taking a look at my post which you are replying to will see
that what I said was:
"With more and more judges of high integrity on the bench we will
see a lot less legislation intended to limit or restrict abortions
being declared unconsitutional"
Which is incorrect.
And that is true.
Only if you change "high" to "lack of",
And anyone can see that it is also true that what you have done
has earned for you a very low mark for integrity.
Correcting an error is lack of integrity? Since when?
Remember, "integrity" isn't defined as "the way Sam Heywood thinks
things should be". From what I've seen, it's more "what Sam Heywood
is against".
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"Christians, it is needless to say, utterly detest each other. They slander each
other constantly with the vilest forms of abuse and cannot come to any sort of
agreement in their teachings. Each sect brands its own, fills the head of its own
with deceitful nonsense, and makes perfect little pigs of those it wins over to its
side."
- Celsus On the True Doctrine, translated by R. Joseph Hoffman, Oxford University Press, 1987
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question durring the American Elections |
18 Dec 2006 06:53:27 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 09:57:19 -0500, in free.christians
"Samuel W. Heywood" <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote in
<Pine.NEB.4.62.0612180816380.13863@sdf.lonestar.org>:
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, Al Klein wrote:
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 09:40:09 -0600, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
Even the
Catholic hierarchy, which had once cared about social issues, has
become incapable of telling good people from bad and now demands
that their parishioners vote for evil people -- as long as the evil
people say they are 'pro-life' or 'against gay marriage' -- despite
the evidence that these folks have not and will not do anything to
decrease the number of abortions in this country.
The Bush administration seems to have done a good job at appointing
federal judges which have a reputation for interpreting the law the
way they are supposed to. The Bush administration is not nominating
for federal judgeships the kind of judges who are thought to have an
activist agenda who abuse their power by legislating from the bench.
Appellate judges are all activist -- it's their job description. When
Tony Scalia tells you he isn't activist, he knows he is lying to you. Do
you know he is lying to you?
Bush has offered some stinkers that even the lockstep Republicans
refused to consider. That is part of the reason that there are three
vacancies, with a fourth coming up in the Fourth Circuit. As long has he
is paying back his big business folks, he doesn't appoint people who
hate our civil liberties, but when he is appeasing the religious nuts,
the constitution is not safe.
As long as a Republican majority is maintained in the Senate the Bush
administration's nominees are likely to continue to be approved.
Except the totally aweful ones he should never have offered in the first
place.
With more and more judges of high integrity on the bench we will be
seeing a lot less legislation intended to limit or restrict abortions
being declared unconstitutional. Also we will be seeing more and more
pro-abortion legislation being stricken down.
What pro-abortion legislation?
Because once they do, there's no further reason to vote for them. But
the Christapuppets aren't intelligent enough to realize how they're
being played, election after election.
You would see millions more people voting for Democrats if the
Democrats would just back off of their pro-abortion agenda. The main
reason why the so-called "religious right" supports the Republican
Party is due to that party's anti-abortion stance. As judged on the
balance scales belonging to the religious right, the Republican
Party's anti-abortion stance has much heavier weight on the good side
of the scale than the weight of all the bad things the Republicans do
has on the bad side of the scale. When the Democrats are weighed,
the religious right observes that there just aren't enough good things
that the Democrats do that tip the scale to the good side because of
the very heavy weight that hangs on the bad side, and the heaviest
one on the bad side is their pro-abortion stance. The only reason
why the the scales tipped to the bad side for the Republicans in the
last election is because of the scandals which erupted just before
the elections which involved highy prominent Republicans and right
wing religious leaders. Hopefully that was just a temporary offset
and an upset. The Republicans and the right wing religious leaders
will just have to clean up their act and fix the problem by kicking
out their scandal-prone-people, starting with Newt Gingrich, to make
sure that that the Republicans will do well in the next election.
The Republicans love to use the pro-life suckers who keep voting for
them but never get anything out of it. The Republicans have shown that
they have no intention of delivering on those promises. If you want to
have fewer abortions in this country, then vote for the people who will
improve the social safety net. They are the true pro-lifers. The
Republicans are just liars that you have been conned by.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question durring the American Elections |
19 Dec 2006 07:32:06 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 18:53:27 -0600, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 09:57:19 -0500, in free.christians
"Samuel W. Heywood" <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote in
With more and more judges of high integrity on the bench we will be
seeing a lot less legislation intended to limit or restrict abortions
being declared unconstitutional. Also we will be seeing more and more
pro-abortion legislation being stricken down.
What pro-abortion legislation?
What China has, but pro-liar control freaks can't see the difference
between freedom and slavery, as long as they get to pull all the
strings.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious
conviction."
- Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question durring the American Elections |
19 Dec 2006 06:15:42 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 08:32:06 -0500, in free.christians
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in
<mcqfo21l9ln9ha74qi59c6824cip2ikpb4@4ax.com>:
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 18:53:27 -0600, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 09:57:19 -0500, in free.christians
"Samuel W. Heywood" <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote in
With more and more judges of high integrity on the bench we will be
seeing a lot less legislation intended to limit or restrict abortions
being declared unconstitutional. Also we will be seeing more and more
pro-abortion legislation being stricken down.
What pro-abortion legislation?
What China has, but pro-liar control freaks can't see the difference
between freedom and slavery, as long as they get to pull all the
strings.
It would be nice if Sam would tell us exactly which states have these
one-child policies. I'd be happy to picket against such a law.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D6" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question durring the American Elections |
06 Nov 2006 11:12:32 AM |
|
|
Gilbertus Albans <primemenstat@world.net> said:
Should Christian vote?
Why?
No: http://www.thercg.org/books/scv.html
Yes: http://www.christianity.ca/news/weblog/2004/06.23.html
-- Jim07D6
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brian E. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question durring the American Elections |
06 Nov 2006 07:53:56 PM |
|
|
In article <NWJ3h.1097$9t4.535@trnddc03>, Gilbertus Albans
said...
Should Christian vote?
If the Christian is stupid enough to think your question has
merit: no. Otherwise, yes.
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nekojin" |
|
| Title: Religion in Politics |
06 Nov 2006 08:19:39 PM |
|
|
YOU have probably noticed that in recent years the churches have been
placing a lot more emphasis on social and political issues. Many
clergymen around the world are joining a rush to "get involved."
Sincere persons wonder if this is the proper role of religion. They may
note that, on the surface, participation in community affairs and
political activities appears to be well motivated. News headlines tell
of clerics who suffer imprisonment and even lose their lives in the
fight for a social cause.
But what is really behind this growing political activity? Is it
motivated by devotion to Christian ideals, faith in God and a desire to
see his will done on earth? To what will it finally lead?
.
|
|
|
| User: "TechZeroTony" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion in Politics |
08 Nov 2006 02:10:34 AM |
|
|
"Nekojin" <ztradi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1162865978.969479.251220@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Who cares troll?
PLONK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
YOU have probably noticed that in recent years the churches have been
placing a lot more emphasis on social and political issues. Many
clergymen around the world are joining a rush to "get involved."
Sincere persons wonder if this is the proper role of religion. They may
note that, on the surface, participation in community affairs and
political activities appears to be well motivated. News headlines tell
of clerics who suffer imprisonment and even lose their lives in the
fight for a social cause.
But what is really behind this growing political activity? Is it
motivated by devotion to Christian ideals, faith in God and a desire to
see his will done on earth? To what will it finally lead?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lord Calvert" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion in Politics |
06 Nov 2006 08:58:15 PM |
|
|
Nekojin wrote:
YOU have probably noticed that in recent years the churches have been
placing a lot more emphasis on social and political issues. Many
clergymen around the world are joining a rush to "get involved."
Sincere persons wonder if this is the proper role of religion. They may
note that, on the surface, participation in community affairs and
political activities appears to be well motivated. News headlines tell
of clerics who suffer imprisonment and even lose their lives in the
fight for a social cause.
But what is really behind this growing political activity? Is it
motivated by devotion to Christian ideals, faith in God and a desire to
see his will done on earth? To what will it finally lead?
This is not particularly a new phenomenon in this country. It has been
around since the Massachusetts Bay Colony threw out Roger Williams for
heresy and he went to found the Providence Plantations colony (Rhode
Island)...the first state built on complete religious neutrality in
government.
The 19th century public orator Robert Green Ingersoll probably said it
best in his work "Some Mistakes of Moses" in 1879 when he said,
"Churches are becoming political organizations.... It probably will not
be long until the churches will divide as sharply upon political, as
upon theological questions; and when that day comes, if there are not
liberals enough to hold the balance of power, this Government will be
destroyed. The liberty of man is not safe in the hands of any church.
Wherever the Bible and sword are in partnership, man is a slave."
Ingersoll was very wrong in one sense. Not only was it probably not
long that churches had divided upon political questions in this
country, the most important religious schism in American history had
already happened 34 years before Ingersoll wrote this. As anticipated,
it was over a political question when the Southern Baptist Congress
broke away from their northern brethren over the issue of slavery in
1845 and the Southern Baptists, through their political front (the
Confederate States of America) did indeed try very hard to bring down
the nation and very nearly succeeded due to the skill of their military
commanders. The pro-slavery, big-government, Christian-supremacist
Southern Baptist Congress remains the largest Protestant denomination
in the United States today and they still use a political front (in a
supreme bit of irony called the Republican Party after the Dixiecrats
had seized control of the party of their historical enemies in 1980)
for the purpose of bringing down the country to enforce their religious
tenets, just as they did in 1860.
My own opinion is that by using political machinery to enact religious
change believing it to be God's will, the politically motivated
Christians are demonstrating that they have no genuine faith in God and
are unwilling to progress as He intends. It is they who truly believe
that God is impotent, otherwise they would feel no need to act and
instead they would be putting their faith in God that the world will
develop as He sees fit. By believing that they can enact God's will
better than God himself can, they have placed themselves above God and
by their actions, hold Him in contempt. It is they who have proved many
atheists' claims because they actually *act* like God does not exist.
Rich Goranson
Amherst, NY, USA
aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1
EAC Department of Applied Rattan Usage
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Shumer" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Religion in Politics |
07 Nov 2006 07:23:29 PM |
|
|
On 6 Nov 2006 18:58:15 -0800, "Lord Calvert" <CalvertdeGrey@msn.com>
wrote:
Nekojin wrote:
YOU have probably noticed that in recent years the churches have been
placing a lot more emphasis on social and political issues. Many
clergymen around the world are joining a rush to "get involved."
Sincere persons wonder if this is the proper role of religion. They
may
note that, on the surface, participation in community affairs and
political activities appears to be well motivated. News headlines tell
of clerics who suffer imprisonment and even lose their lives in the
fight for a social cause.
But what is really behind this growing political activity? Is it
motivated by devotion to Christian ideals, faith in God and a desire
to
see his will done on earth? To what will it finally lead?
This is not particularly a new phenomenon in this country. It has been
around since the Massachusetts Bay Colony threw out Roger Williams for
heresy and he went to found the Providence Plantations colony (Rhode
Island)...the first state built on complete religious neutrality in
government.
The 19th century public orator Robert Green Ingersoll probably said it
best in his work "Some Mistakes of Moses" in 1879 when he said,
"Churches are becoming political organizations.... It probably will not
be long until the churches will divide as sharply upon political, as
upon theological questions; and when that day comes, if there are not
liberals enough to hold the balance of power, this Government will be
destroyed. The liberty of man is not safe in the hands of any church.
Wherever the Bible and sword are in partnership, man is a slave."
Ingersoll was very wrong in one sense. Not only was it probably not
long that churches had divided upon political questions in this
country, the most important religious schism in American history had
already happened 34 years before Ingersoll wrote this. As anticipated,
it was over a political question when the Southern Baptist Congress
broke away from their northern brethren over the issue of slavery in
1845 and the Southern Baptists, through their political front (the
Confederate States of America) did indeed try very hard to bring down
the nation and very nearly succeeded due to the skill of their military
commanders. The pro-slavery, big-government, Christian-supremacist
Southern Baptist Congress remains the largest Protestant denomination
in the United States today and they still use a political front (in a
supreme bit of irony called the Republican Party after the Dixiecrats
had seized control of the party of their historical enemies in 1980)
for the purpose of bringing down the country to enforce their religious
tenets, just as they did in 1860.
My own opinion is that by using political machinery to enact religious
change believing it to be God's will, the politically motivated
Christians are demonstrating that they have no genuine faith in God and
are unwilling to progress as He intends. It is they who truly believe
that God is impotent, otherwise they would feel no need to act and
instead they would be putting their faith in God that the world will
develop as He sees fit. By believing that they can enact God's will
better than God himself can, they have placed themselves above God and
by their actions, hold Him in contempt. It is they who have proved many
atheists' claims because they actually *act* like God does not exist.
Rich Goranson
Amherst, NY, USA
aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1
EAC Department of Applied Rattan Usage
Very well said!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Shumer" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion in Politics |
06 Nov 2006 08:25:26 PM |
|
|
On 6 Nov 2006 18:19:39 -0800, "Nekojin" <ztradi@gmail.com> wrote:
YOU have probably noticed that in recent years the churches have been
placing a lot more emphasis on social and political issues. Many
clergymen around the world are joining a rush to "get involved."
Sincere persons wonder if this is the proper role of religion. They may
note that, on the surface, participation in community affairs and
political activities appears to be well motivated. News headlines tell
of clerics who suffer imprisonment and even lose their lives in the
fight for a social cause.
But what is really behind this growing political activity? Is it
motivated by devotion to Christian ideals, faith in God and a desire to
see his will done on earth? To what will it finally lead?
It doesn't look good for congressional candidates who try to work their
religion into their politics. Ditto for many state legislators. Most
people view religion as something personal and resent having somebody
else's beliefs imposed on them. I think tomorrow's elections will show
that the far right isn't as powerful as they think they are.
We'll see.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nekojin" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion in Politics |
06 Nov 2006 08:43:41 PM |
|
|
Rich Shumer wrote:
see his will done on earth? To what will it finally lead?
It doesn't look good for congressional candidates who try to work their
religion into their politics. Ditto for many state legislators. Most
people view religion as something personal and resent having somebody
else's beliefs imposed on them. I think tomorrow's elections will show
that the far right isn't as powerful as they think they are.
We'll see
The booklet Church and Powers published by the French Protestant
Federation makes this comment about the historical relationship of
religion and politics:
"The undeniable fact is that in the political field, the organized
church has more often than not been directed, willingly or unwillingly,
toward two extremes: either it has claimed, sometimes by force,
authority over the political powers, . . . [or] it has accepted to be
the principal agent, accomplice or silent witness of an unjust social
order."
However, Catholic archbishop Marcos G. McGrath of Panama says this is
no longer universally true: "The old concept of a church as a
parallel structure to the secular power, and sometimes identified with
it, is rapidly changing."
Now, under the banner of "helping the poor," "relevance" and
"social justice," an increasing number of the clergy are taking a
new direction. Radical social and political criticism is replacing
their traditional progovernment stance. They are urging the rank and
file to take an active part in politics, even encouraging them to do so
with the "leftist" socialist elements.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Shumer" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Religion in Politics |
07 Nov 2006 07:20:31 PM |
|
|
On 6 Nov 2006 18:43:41 -0800, "Nekojin" <ztradi@gmail.com> wrote:
Rich Shumer wrote:
see his will done on earth? To what will it finally lead?
It doesn't look good for congressional candidates who try to work
their
religion into their politics. Ditto for many state legislators. Most
people view religion as something personal and resent having somebody
else's beliefs imposed on them. I think tomorrow's elections will
show
that the far right isn't as powerful as they think they are.
We'll see
The booklet Church and Powers published by the French Protestant
Federation makes this comment about the historical relationship of
religion and politics:
"The undeniable fact is that in the political field, the organized
church has more often than not been directed, willingly or unwillingly,
toward two extremes: either it has claimed, sometimes by force,
authority over the political powers, . . . [or] it has accepted to be
the principal agent, accomplice or silent witness of an unjust social
order."
However, Catholic archbishop Marcos G. McGrath of Panama says this is
no longer universally true: "The old concept of a church as a
parallel structure to the secular power, and sometimes identified with
it, is rapidly changing."
Now, under the banner of "helping the poor," "relevance" and
"social justice," an increasing number of the clergy are taking a
new direction. Radical social and political criticism is replacing
their traditional progovernment stance. They are urging the rank and
file to take an active part in politics, even encouraging them to do so
with the "leftist" socialist elements.
Participation in the sense you mention is one thing. Blatently
inserting religion into the scheme of things is another -- like fetal
stem cell research barriers by decree without descent or the run back to
Washington to intervene in the Terry Shivo case (until, at least the
polls showed overwhelming support of removing the tube). Working to
improve the lot of the people is not the same as putting religion over
law.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question durring the American Elections |
06 Nov 2006 02:31:38 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 17:04:45 GMT, Gilbertus Albans
<primemenstat@world.net> wrote:
Should Christian vote?
Christians, yes, but why would that concern you, Jabbers? You're as
Christian as bin Laden, and twice as sociopathic. Should you be
allowed to vote? You shouldn't be allowed out of your cage without a
leash.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"Given that you exist and that you are aware of your situation and
surroundings, you will find yourself in a place which has conditions
exactly suitable to your being there. If the environment was
hostile or incompatible in some important way then you would not be
there in the first place. Therefore the suitability and seeming
perfection of your universe cannot be taken as evidence of anything
more than your existence in it."
- Edward Warren, "The naturalistic fallacy"
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
This signature was made by SigChanger.
You can find SigChanger at: http://www.phranc.nl/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Henry Mankinna" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question durring the American Elections |
06 Nov 2006 02:58:42 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:ip6vk2p36l9od4hvd0v5q6gqhousqsr61t@4ax.com...
On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 17:04:45 GMT, Gilbertus Albans
<primemenstat@world.net> wrote:
Should Christian vote?
Christians, yes, but why would that concern you, Jabbers? You're as
Christian as bin Laden, and twice as sociopathic. Should you be
allowed to vote? You shouldn't be allowed out of your cage without a
leash.
According to some of his recent messages on the Jehovah's Witness NG
attacking his victim; I'd say there's a sexual psychopathology as well.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question durring the American Elections |
06 Nov 2006 10:01:57 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 14:58:42 -0600, "Henry Mankinna"
<mankinna93@gmail.com> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:ip6vk2p36l9od4hvd0v5q6gqhousqsr61t@4ax.com...
On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 17:04:45 GMT, Gilbertus Albans
<primemenstat@world.net> wrote:
Should Christian vote?
Christians, yes, but why would that concern you, Jabbers? You're as
Christian as bin Laden, and twice as sociopathic. Should you be
allowed to vote? You shouldn't be allowed out of your cage without a
leash.
According to some of his recent messages on the Jehovah's Witness NG
attacking his victim; I'd say there's a sexual psychopathology as well.
I'm not qualified to examine his pathology - I'm sane.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to
the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his
children smart.
- H. L. Mencken
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
This signature was made by SigChanger.
You can find SigChanger at: http://www.phranc.nl/
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nekojin" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question durring the American Elections |
06 Nov 2006 02:39:18 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 17:04:45 GMT, Gilbertus Albans
<primemenstat@world.net> wrote:
Should Christian vote?
Christians, yes,
Why Should Christians vote?
but why would that concern you, Jabbers? You're as
Christian as bin Laden, and twice as sociopathic.
Bin Ladden is a Christian?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question durring the American Elections |
06 Nov 2006 03:46:38 PM |
|
|
"Nekojin" <ztradi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1162845558.726823.202540@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
but why would that concern you, Jabbers? You're as
Christian as bin Laden, and twice as sociopathic.
Bin Ladden is a Christian?
Are you that fucking stupid?
*whoooooooooooooooooooooosh*
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nekojin" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question durring the American Elections |
06 Nov 2006 05:47:15 PM |
|
|
Geoff wrote:
"Nekojin" <ztradi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1162845558.726823.202540@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
but why would that concern you, Jabbers? You're as
Christian as bin Laden, and twice as sociopathic.
Bin Ladden is a Christian?
Are you that fucking stupid?
*whoooooooooooooooooooooosh*
No are you?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Question durring the American Elections |
06 Nov 2006 06:31:08 PM |
|
|
"Nekojin" <ztradi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1162856835.364938.252080@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Geoff wrote:
"Nekojin" <ztradi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1162845558.726823.202540@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
but why would that concern you, Jabbers? You're as
Christian as bin Laden, and twice as sociopathic.
Bin Ladden is a Christian?
Are you that fucking stupid?
*whoooooooooooooooooooooosh*
No are you?
QED
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
