Applying God's Word to Politics
- Thread starter GWH
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Not in the sense of indwelling as in His Ekklesia.
But the Word of God is parallel to the Spirit of God (Prov1:23). And the Spirit of God is in the world convicting men. And God's People are in the world functioning as light. And so on... What point of politics is not related to the Word of God as we assess His will for His creation - mankind?
But the Word of God is parallel to the Spirit of God (Prov1:23). And the Spirit of God is in the world convicting men. And God's People are in the world functioning as light. And so on... What point of politics is not related to the Word of God as we assess His will for His creation - mankind?
Well then it’s very simple.
Make the distinction and draw the line how far you want to mix politics with God.
Because I told you earlier that I agree with you up until the point where you mix politics with God.
Then we part ways.
So be more clear or let’s talk for the sake of talking while having coffee.
Trans being wrong is also a moral judgment that comes from an atheist society - just an FYI for you.
Make the distinction and draw the line how far you want to mix politics with God.
Because I told you earlier that I agree with you up until the point where you mix politics with God.
Then we part ways.
So be more clear or let’s talk for the sake of talking while having coffee.
Trans being wrong is also a moral judgment that comes from an atheist society - just an FYI for you.
Since you get your morality from the Bible, and I assume we agree that God is the source of all absolute standards, then we should be able to agree that moral judgments made by [so-called] atheists are immaterial to the discussion. Whether they like it or not, we may agree with them on a point of morality, but our view comes from the Bible. Same goes for any disagreement. In this we are simply mixing God and politics no matter who does or does not like it.
IMO, I have drawn the line a few times. We don't use human government to force belief that Jesus is YHWH's CHRIST/KING. On the other side of that line, we mix God with politics every time we voice an opinion for what is Good vs. Bad, Right vs. Wrong, Moral vs. Immoral and we unabashedly say because God says it is so. We make mistakes. There are outliers opining in the extremes. Some are more learned than others. We do our best in Christ in Spirit and we grow in His grace and knowledge over time thereby becoming better at judging according to righteousness.
This part here confirms more of your confusion and misunderstanding of the Bible when you apply such judgment to other humans in history.
So at this point this is clear that you value yourself as “superior” while everyone else is trash.
This is exactly why we don’t need this kind of attitude in “Christian “ governments and it’s why your founding fathers were smart enough to separate this topic while on a personal level many of them were Christians.
They knew that their ego would get too big if they applied “Biblical” standards as legislature .
God bless them for that wisdom.
So at this point this is clear that you value yourself as “superior” while everyone else is trash.
This is exactly why we don’t need this kind of attitude in “Christian “ governments and it’s why your founding fathers were smart enough to separate this topic while on a personal level many of them were Christians.
They knew that their ego would get too big if they applied “Biblical” standards as legislature .
God bless them for that wisdom.
So you have just established two different standards of being: one requires the Spirit of God in the person, another requires obedience to God (or rather, obedience to what others say God is saying) without the Spirit of God in them. Our laws in the US govern terrestrial men with the earth being their assumed origin. Furthermore, each citizen has the right (currently) to establish their own "creator". In the constitutional model, the people are sovereign over their own definitions of life, liberty, and whatever they consider happiness to be.
Juridical challenges notwithstanding, how will this be enforced? Will the enforcers be those who demonstrate maturity in Christ (like the church leaders are Biblically chosen) or will they complete some course and pass some exam?
I could go on and on about how antithetical a "Christian nation" is to the revelation of Jesus Christ. But for kicks, let me make one more statement:
The federal democratic republic, the current form of government established by the US Constitution, is perhaps the MOST diametrically opposed form of government, to the Kingdom of God, in the history of the world. You cannot refine it to meet a kingdom standard because it's based upon a foundational "rule by the people" which God hates.
Nikos (conquer) + Laos (people) = Nicolatians.
"But you have this in your favor: You hate the practices of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate."
Juridical challenges notwithstanding, how will this be enforced? Will the enforcers be those who demonstrate maturity in Christ (like the church leaders are Biblically chosen) or will they complete some course and pass some exam?
I could go on and on about how antithetical a "Christian nation" is to the revelation of Jesus Christ. But for kicks, let me make one more statement:
The federal democratic republic, the current form of government established by the US Constitution, is perhaps the MOST diametrically opposed form of government, to the Kingdom of God, in the history of the world. You cannot refine it to meet a kingdom standard because it's based upon a foundational "rule by the people" which God hates.
Nikos (conquer) + Laos (people) = Nicolatians.
"But you have this in your favor: You hate the practices of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate."
-
1
- Show all
Insert fallacious argumentation again but escalating.
You have asserted your views over what you've called "stupid" ones. You've also repeated terminology you've learned from others labeling other views as "woke virus". These are judgments you've made according to standards you have which standards you say come from the Bible.
The founders of the US foundationally structured the US to not use governmental force to establish a national religion. They also foundationally structured the US to allow us to voice our opinions about what we view as stupid and [mental] viruses, etc. They knew as we still do that men do not cease to mix God with politics, so they created the dividing line I mentioned before and here once again. They also established protection to vote our conscience wherever its standards come from.
IMO you're confused about this dividing line. You bounce back and forth over the line continually. It can get philosophically challenging the deeper it's discussed, but on the surface it's quite simple. Mix God with politics as much as you want in regard to the rules that govern your society, but don't use the government to force belief in your God.
Philosophically, since YHWH has commanded not to murder, are we forcing belief in YHWH by legislating against murder? I think this line of questioning or reasoning is what @GWH was getting at in his post #1 and #4.
Other than this, I'm about done with our current line of discussion. IMO you've acknowledged your standards come from the Bible. I read you voicing your opinions on morality and such things that I can also find in the Word of God and thereby see you mixing God and politics repeatedly. I agree with you that the US government is not to force belief in whatever God it may fancy. I also think this is quite an area for discussion of reality.
These are not standard from the Bible bro. Why are you acting like you're a programmed robot?
Even a child can tell right from wrong when they accidentally put their hand of the stove and burn it.
These are standards that ANY society in history develops and keeps the balance from going into extremes.
Biblical standards are a different thing. This is the whole point that you and @GWH mix.
Okay hold on a second here. This is new and i didn't hear it before.
You're saying that "we can talk about applying Biblical standards in government but don't force them on others"?
Is this what you're saying?
In other words "politicians lead by example" ?
Even a child can tell right from wrong when they accidentally put their hand of the stove and burn it.
These are standards that ANY society in history develops and keeps the balance from going into extremes.
Biblical standards are a different thing. This is the whole point that you and @GWH mix.
Okay hold on a second here. This is new and i didn't hear it before.
You're saying that "we can talk about applying Biblical standards in government but don't force them on others"?
Is this what you're saying?
In other words "politicians lead by example" ?
I didn't establish these 2 different standards of being. Do you agree or disagree that they exist? Does God require obedience of all men?
How will what be enforced, men making their own definitions? Do you see me anywhere suggesting men force such definitions upon men?
Juridically men whether they are Christian or non-Christian complete courses and experience levels to judge the actions of men. In a sense such judgments can force men to reexamine their definitions and thoughts.
Though some may have misunderstood me, I have not mentioned or touched upon the concept of a Christian nation other than to acknowledge that the USC does not allow a government established religion.
I don't know that we'll get into it here, but I too do not see the USC as a Christian document. I've not deeply focused on this but have read and glanced through some extensive opinions on the topic and have read some writings of a Jewish legal scholar(?) on the same. In my overall and general view, FWIW, I currently think that all forms of human governments are theories God is allowing men to work through in history to prove men were never designed to rule themselves apart from God. We've basically touched on this in regard to being in Christ in Spirit.
IMO it may benefit you to do a bit more research on the Nicolaitans and whether your conceptual breakdown of the Greek is telling the whole story.
How will what be enforced, men making their own definitions? Do you see me anywhere suggesting men force such definitions upon men?
Juridically men whether they are Christian or non-Christian complete courses and experience levels to judge the actions of men. In a sense such judgments can force men to reexamine their definitions and thoughts.
Though some may have misunderstood me, I have not mentioned or touched upon the concept of a Christian nation other than to acknowledge that the USC does not allow a government established religion.
I don't know that we'll get into it here, but I too do not see the USC as a Christian document. I've not deeply focused on this but have read and glanced through some extensive opinions on the topic and have read some writings of a Jewish legal scholar(?) on the same. In my overall and general view, FWIW, I currently think that all forms of human governments are theories God is allowing men to work through in history to prove men were never designed to rule themselves apart from God. We've basically touched on this in regard to being in Christ in Spirit.
IMO it may benefit you to do a bit more research on the Nicolaitans and whether your conceptual breakdown of the Greek is telling the whole story.