Applying God's Word to Politics

[GWH]

Anytime you're talking to me... please go ahead and make the answer obvious.
: )

I said "Yes", indicating that I agreed with your answer ,"We should probably be careful that we don't accidentally minimize the seriousness of sin", and then I built upon it with "and we should not minimize the truth that the root reason the UK condones sin is because not many accept Christ, and thus the KOG is not salting and enlightening British society sufficiently to resist such evil."
So go ahead and build upon what I answered if you would like.

 

[GWH]

Applying Christian beliefs to politics can be challenging, especially when it comes to complex issues such as national borders, abortion, and Lawfare. To navigate these issues, it's essential to consider the principles of loving our neighbors, caring for the vulnerable, and promoting justice.

Yes, indeed, and if you would like to navigate an issue, please lead on! :^)

 

[tinathebookworm]

Regarding Abortion, Christians can engage in respectful and empathetic dialogue with those who hold different views. I oppose on moral grounds. Some people I love advocate for 'women's reproductive rights' and access to safe and legal abortion services. Ultimately, Christians can work towards creating a society that supports women's health, education, and economic empowerment, reducing the perceived need for abortion.

 

[GWH]

Why do people do anything that they do?
Free will !

A multitude of past events can help shed light as i mentioned in another topic with you regarding abusive Christian parents.
The child, in rebellion will reject their parents and the Christian faith and will turn head-on into sin just in spite.
This is just one example by the way. Because it could be many other reasons.

So we all have been shaped by the environment and culture (which also includes politics).
Why did the U.S. Democratic party switch from protecting people's rights into protecting people's feelings?
Do you know? It's very hard for me to pin down specific moments starting from the Bill Clinton era.

JFK today is considered a Republican compared to how the Democratic party

Yes, we are shaped by heredity and environment, but not determined--even by God--or else volition/moral accountability is an illusion and God's POS is a tragi-farce, although how volition works (like a lot of "hows" although we are getting better at weather forecasting, cf. JN 3:8) is a mystery.

 

[GWH]

Regarding Abortion, Christians can engage in respectful and empathetic dialogue with those who hold different views. I oppose on moral grounds. Some people I love advocate for 'women's reproductive rights' and access to safe and legal abortion services. Ultimately, Christians can work towards creating a society that supports women's health, education, and economic empowerment, reducing the perceived need for abortion.

Yes, and I would underline fetal "education" for everyone of high school age, because in my own case I was a naive "pro choice" person at age 25 until I contemplated photos of a 7-month-old fetus in the womb and a 7-month-old "premie" just out of the womb and realized there was nothing different other than mode of nourishment, so I finally realized that abortion after at least the stage of viability must be murder.

 

[studier]

I oppose on moral grounds

Will you elaborate?

reducing the perceived need for abortion.

Same request. Why do you think there is a perceived need and what is that perception?

Yes, and I would underline fetal "education" for everyone of high school age

Seems a good idea. Also seems it should be at minimum early high school age.

I saw some interesting data here: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/03/25/what-the-data-says-about-abortion-in-the-us/

At quick glance the downward trend for me was unexpected. What wasn't unexpected was the high marks being in the 1990's after almost a vertical line since the early 1970's. This data shows legal abortions.

What does it say for and against legalization in the Biblical sense that Torah at its base actually means instruction? IOW how does instructing a normalcy of the procedure do anything ultimately beneficial to the overall culture knowing what we know about God's blessing good and punishing bad?

How is it possible as salt and light to not speak, promote legislation (which is at root instruction), vote for that which we know from God is good for the society? IOW vote our Faith? If it's not our Faith it's others' beliefs.

Going a bit deeper, since we know from Rom1 that God has made Himself known to all, then why should we coddle those who reject Him especially when as Paul continues in Rom1, we're told that at some point of rejection God turns such people over to their "worthless" (translated as "reprobate" by some) minds? So, as we coddle God rejectors who when reaching a certain mass are bringing God's judgment (IOW when we see the proliferation in that growing mass we're seeing His judgment in action as He's turning more and more over to their own minds), why do we put up with it as part of the society being judged?

I haven't even gotten to the issue of Jesus Christ yet. I've stopped at general revelation and I'll end at the remainder of Rom1 that speaks of man knowing the righteous judgment of God but having no concern with it. Is this the people group any society should coddle and tolerate beyond some decided point?

In Israel it was love for neighbor to rebuke those who were out of line. Maybe the needed education is to teach Christians what out of line means. Thus my first request to elaborate on "morality".

This is not meant to be just about abortion but for every point of so-called politics.

 

[studier]

Feel free to start something

In a small way I just did in #626 without redirecting the thread. Isn't the question for us always what the mark is we are to aim for, the standard we don't want to deviate from so we don't stumble or fall? And how are we to love neighbor by not informing them of the rocks and forks (hope this translates to Albanian!?) in the road?

 

[GWH]

Will you elaborate?



Same request. Why do you think there is a perceived need and what is that perception?



Seems a good idea. Also seems it should be at minimum early high school age.

I saw some interesting data here: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/03/25/what-the-data-says-about-abortion-in-the-us/

At quick glance the downward trend for me was unexpected. What wasn't unexpected was the high marks being in the 1990's after almost a vertical line since the early 1970's. This data shows legal abortions.

What does it say for and against legalization in the Biblical sense that Torah at its base actually means instruction? IOW how does instructing a normalcy of the procedure do anything ultimately beneficial to the overall culture knowing what we know about God's blessing good and punishing bad?

How is it possible as salt and light to not speak, promote legislation (which is at root instruction), vote for that which we know from God is good for the society? IOW vote our Faith? If it's not our Faith it's others' beliefs.

Going a bit deeper, since we know from Rom1 that God has made Himself known to all, then why should we coddle those who reject Him especially when as Paul continues in Rom1, we're told that at some point of rejection God turns such people over to their "worthless" (translated as "reprobate" by some) minds? So, as we coddle God rejectors who when reaching a certain mass are bringing God's judgment (IOW when we see the proliferation in that growing mass we're seeing His judgment in action as He's turning more and more over to their own minds), why do we put up with it as part of the society being judged?

I haven't even gotten to the issue of Jesus Christ yet. I've stopped at general revelation and I'll end at the remainder of Rom1 that speaks of man knowing the righteous judgment of God but having no concern with it. Is this the people group any society should coddle and tolerate beyond some decided point?

In Israel it was love for neighbor to rebuke those who were out of line. Maybe the needed education is to teach Christians what out of line means. Thus my first request to elaborate on "morality".

This is not meant to be just about abortion but for every point of so-called politics.

I find your use of "coddle" can be compared and contrasted with Scripture's use of "warn". Ezekiel 3 and 33 commands warning sinners or else we will be guilty, and we find several references to warning in the NT, but TIT 3:10-11 seems to be most relevant: "Warn a divisive person [those who reject GW] once, and then warn them a second time [instead of forgiving them 70 x 7 times]. After that, have nothing to do with them [imprison them?]. You may be sure that such people are warped [menatlly ill?] and sinful [intentionally criminal?]; they are self-condemned [to prison or death?]."

 

[Eli1]

In a small way I just did in #626 without redirecting the thread. Isn't the question for us always what the mark is we are to aim for, the standard we don't want to deviate from so we don't stumble or fall? And how are we to love neighbor by not informing them of the rocks and forks (hope this translates to Albanian!?) in the road?

This is usually done by doing first and speaking after. This is the understanding where i come from and the church.
My culture is similar to the Jews in a lot of ways.
For example in Job 2:11-13 we see his friends just sitting with him in silence for a week before even saying anything.
So this is how we start, by doing first and speaking after.
Of course this is one approach and i'm not saying it's the only one, and some people learn by doing or seeing and some others want a more intellectual answer in order to persuade them to take a good path in the road.

 

[studier]

I find your use of "coddle" can be compared and contrasted with Scripture's use of "warn". Ezekiel 3 and 33 commands warning sinners or else we will be guilty, and we find several references to warning in the NT, but TIT 3:10-11 seems to be most relevant: "Warn a divisive person [those who reject GW] once, and then warn them a second time [instead of forgiving them 70 x 7 times]. After that, have nothing to do with them [imprison them?]. You may be sure that such people are warped [menatlly ill?] and sinful [intentionally criminal?]; they are self-condemned [to prison or death?]."

Coddle vs. warn is a good contrast.

Looking at Titus3 glancing from 3:1-11 and landing on 3:9 for a moment, what do you think the highlighted phrase means?

​

NET Titus 3:9 But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, quarrels, and fights about the law, because they are useless and empty.​

​

Since Paul is dealing with what to do and not to do as a Christian, and since we're somewhat in the mode of discussing sin while the topic is politics, what is he saying about law (since sin is lawlessness)?​

 

[GWH]

Coddle vs. warn is a good contrast.

Looking at Titus3 glancing from 3:1-11 and landing on 3:9 for a moment, what do you think the highlighted phrase means?

​

NET Titus 3:9 But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, quarrels, and fights about the law, because they are useless and empty.​

​

Since Paul is dealing with what to do and not to do as a Christian, and since we're somewhat in the mode of discussing sin while the topic is politics, what is he saying about law (since sin is lawlessness)?​

Well I found folks wasting time arguing about Sabbath law on a thread.

 

[GWH]

Steve Bannon applies GW to politics often, and yesterday he wondered who thought it was appropriate for the atheist anthem "Imagine" (by John Lennon) to be sung at a Southern Baptist president's funeral service in the National (Episcopal) Cathedral?!

 

[studier]

Well I found folks wasting time arguing about Sabbath law on a thread.

I'll pass on Sabbath debates for now as I'm passing on a few other things that get too heated and go nowhere. But your example is a good one re: the question I asked.

I usually go first to translation wondering if they are correct or not. At first glance I had a few questions about this verse and what Paul is getting at.

I don't at the moment see Paul talking about the law itself, or points of law (like Sabbath). He has Titus getting things in order setting up a congregation to function properly, which includes leadership.

In 3:10-11 he's clearly commanding to reject - to dismiss, discharge - a man who causes divisions. The word here for this divisive man is the word from which we get "heretic" and in 3:11 Paul has some very harsh, judgmental words describing him.

In this light and context and based upon the words used in 3:9, I currently see Paul's meaning of the word being translated as "disputes about the law" being more pointedly about the disputer and maybe secondarily about the law.

The wording seems mainly in the flow and mode of setting up these dividers/heretics and commanding what to do about them: avoid/shun foolish/stupid investigations/controversies/disputes, and genealogies/pedigrees, and strivings/rivalries, and lawyers/legals (adjective and normally translated as 'lawyers") disputes (noun). So, disputes over pedigrees & rivalries and lawyers (the word can speak of law or being well-informed about law) (see what Paul says in 1Tim1:7 about men who wanted to be law teachers and other issues re: law and lawyers in Paul, and all the lawyers trying to dispute with Jesus).

It seems more like infighting over positions than doctrine which Paul fought to protect.

 

[studier]

Steve Bannon applies GW to politics often, and yesterday he wondered who thought it was appropriate for the atheist anthem "Imagine" (by John Lennon) to be sung at a Southern Baptist president's funeral service in the National (Episcopal) Cathedral?!

IMO there are interesting things going on in this Christian view of politics arena. With what you wrote above I'd agree with Bannon. We're in a time again IMO where there is way too much world in the Ekklesia and all the overblown seeker friendly nonsense has caused things like this.

Beyond Bannon, TPUSA for one openly and directly proclaims Jesus Christ as KING and wants the filth and corruption out of government. I'm fascinated by it all and in agreement with much of it. It's the opposite of the go sit in a box, keep your religion to yourself, and entertain in hopes of bringing people in mentality of a substantial part of the previous generation.

 

[GWH]

I'll pass on Sabbath debates for now as I'm passing on a few other things that get too heated and go nowhere. But your example is a good one re: the question I asked.

I usually go first to translation wondering if they are correct or not. At first glance I had a few questions about this verse and what Paul is getting at.

I don't at the moment see Paul talking about the law itself, or points of law (like Sabbath). He has Titus getting things in order setting up a congregation to function properly, which includes leadership.

In 3:10-11 he's clearly commanding to reject - to dismiss, discharge - a man who causes divisions. The word here for this divisive man is the word from which we get "heretic" and in 3:11 Paul has some very harsh, judgmental words describing him.

In this light and context and based upon the words used in 3:9, I currently see Paul's meaning of the word being translated as "disputes about the law" being more pointedly about the disputer and maybe secondarily about the law.

The wording seems mainly in the flow and mode of setting up these dividers/heretics and commanding what to do about them: avoid/shun foolish/stupid investigations/controversies/disputes, and genealogies/pedigrees, and strivings/rivalries, and lawyers/legals (adjective and normally translated as 'lawyers") disputes (noun). So, disputes over pedigrees & rivalries and lawyers (the word can speak of law or being well-informed about law) (see what Paul says in 1Tim1:7 about men who wanted to be law teachers and other issues re: law and lawyers in Paul, and all the lawyers trying to dispute with Jesus).

It seems more like infighting over positions than doctrine which Paul fought to protect.

I agree that the verse seems to be an all-inclusive type of warning, but the inclusion of the law most likely refers to Judaizers, such as in Galatians 1:6-5:12.

Regarding Bannon and Kirk: They are a 1-2 punch on Real America's Voice television on weekday mornings, and I also appreciate Bianca de la Garza on Newsmax opposite Charlie (I record them both and when one goes to a commercial I switch to the other one :^)

 

[studier]

agree that the verse seems to be an all-inclusive type of warning, but the inclusion of the law most likely refers to Judaizers, such as in Galatians 1:6-5:12.

Agreed, which is why I mentioned primary & secondary - lawyers will push law. One group of early interpreters tied some of this into Gnosticism and one into rabbinic culture.

 

[GWH]

Agreed, which is why I mentioned primary & secondary - lawyers will push law. One group of early interpreters tied some of this into Gnosticism and one into rabbinic culture.

As I type this I am watching the news about the sentencing of Trump by the Dem judge after being convicted by a kangaroo court.

How does GW apply to this political fiasco?

 

[studier]

As I type this I am watching the news about the sentencing of Trump by the Dem judge after being convicted by a kangaroo court.

How does GW apply to this political fiasco?

Impartial and just/fair judgment, righteous standards, and no perjury (10 Commandments) is the basis. That political fiasco is indicative of how far gone is the criminal political class we hope to be getting rid of. IMO we've witnessed being on the brink and Christians have been a major factor by ignoring where it's been headed. Since you watch TP and that younger generation, you've probably noted that some of it will speak of how the previous generation was asleep or worse, with 40-50m 'Christians' not voting. Trump is a smart guy, and it doesn't take much math to confirm what I heard him comment and seemingly lament in 16 - something to the effect that if Christians would only be more united, they would control everything. The problem is what does that look like? How about just pushing for a moral conscience that God instilled into men? No murder, theft, adultery, perjury, and parenting in line with the good, etc. - even just back to the basics and we're way better off than we are now.

 

[GWH]

Impartial and just/fair judgment, righteous standards, and no perjury (10 Commandments) is the basis. That political fiasco is indicative of how far gone is the criminal political class we hope to be getting rid of. IMO we've witnessed being on the brink and Christians have been a major factor by ignoring where it's been headed. Since you watch TP and that younger generation, you've probably noted that some of it will speak of how the previous generation was asleep or worse, with 40-50m 'Christians' not voting. Trump is a smart guy, and it doesn't take much math to confirm what I heard him comment and seemingly lament in 16 - something to the effect that if Christians would only be more united, they would control everything. The problem is what does that look like? How about just pushing for a moral conscience that God instilled into men? No murder, theft, adultery, perjury, and parenting in line with the good, etc. - even just back to the basics and we're way better off than we are now.

Amen! It seemed like America was improving morally until Biden's presidency jerked us toward atheism/Marxism. Hopefully enough Americans have seen how sinful it was, and so spiritual revival has begun.

Do you agree that the bridge too far for the atheists was trying to foist trans-gendering on society, perhaps even more than the open borders and inflation?

 

[studier]

Amen! It seemed like America was improving morally until Biden's presidency jerked us toward atheism/Marxism. Hopefully enough Americans have seen how sinful it was, and so spiritual revival has begun.

Do you agree that the bridge too far for the atheists was trying to foist trans-gendering on society, perhaps even more than the open borders and inflation?

I don't think the US was improving morally. I think the immorality was continually building.

The proverbial last straw has to be preceded by an accumulation of straws. I'd been paying more attention - not intensely but watching - the accumulating straws of degeneracy since the POTUS debates when the homosexual agenda first made it to that stage. That was an intensified moment for me based upon Scripture. Everything after that IMO while watching it was getting nearer & nearer that last straw. In a way it didn't surprise me that the sexual degeneracy issue became more and more pronounced. I'd been saying in any discussions on the matter that the real underlying agenda (not of all but nevertheless deep down) was not about marriage but ultimately about erasing God's creation in kinds - i.e. erasing God - and there was plenty more of that downslide that had to show itself.

America, it seems to me has been known to be the sleeping lion that you don't want to kick. I think Trump's win in 2016 caused the opposition to out themselves in their hatred for him and country and then 2020 on became the all-out kicking the lion period. I was actually surprised at how much and how fast the relatively covered became uncovered. We'll see how ferocious the new administration turns out to be in response. My prayers are that it is not shy re: bringing the Country back to law and order not to mention natural realities, efficiency, self-reliance, economic responsibility, etc. We'll see...