Applying God's Word to Politics

Actually all 3 words historically represent our government.

etymology: democracy comes from the Greek roots meaning “rule by the people,”

Republic comes from the Latin roots meaning “public good” or “public affair,” used in ancient Rome to mean simply “state” or “country” with reference to the representative democracy of the Roman Republic.

A governmental constitution is a social code, which declares the character of the government, and defines the philosophies and values to which society must conform.

A democracy is rule by the people which we are.
A Republic demands that rule to be for the public good of all people (to restrict majority rule)
A condition created by the people for the public good was created to restrict federal governments power.

The only Christian society I see in the scripture is in the New Jerusalem. Within that country there is no religious freedom.

Like many church people, you are conflating Americanism with the government of God. This is part of the "great delusion".

In full disclosure, I've dissuaded few from continuing to support corrupt politicians. It is because my standard is different than theirs: they believe the tenets of the US Constitution represent a higher standard than those of Christ. Because of this, we cannot begin to discuss political matters with common ground.

Your conclusions come from an American reality only.

Try to apply these standards to believers in Communist China, North Korea, etc. and their validity quickly falls apart.

This is referring to the government of God. Most cannot see it because of Rome's insistence upon "the divine right of kings". Therefore, many church people do not recognize those who are sent by God to lead them: a consequence of unbelief.

Good discussion everybody. I even like what Publican said because he referred to one of my favorite Pauline principles: Christians are members of one body or orchestra with different parts or instruments to play. (1 CR 12:4-31)

Rome, way back in the 380's, when they offered the church to be the state church of the empire, offered church leadership:

1. Health care
2. Lower taxes
3. Preferred property ownership and business
4. Strong military support
5. Clean up corruption to make things more "Christian"

In exchange, the church had to support the current administration and say their actions were ordained by God.

They took the offer.

The church began to rule by the decree of the Roman government. It married with politics in order to gain power and influence so that the church could "get things done for Christ".

Any of this sound familiar?

(The only Christian society I see in the scripture is in the New Jerusalem. Within that country there is no religious freedom.)

It doesn't matter. God instituted government Romans 13:1. Our was instituted with religious freedom just as our gospel respects free will.

(Like many church people, you are conflating Americanism with the government of God. This is part of the "great delusion".)

Not so. As post 99 states, we will be held accountable for our actions or inactions.

(In full disclosure, I've dissuaded few from continuing to support corrupt politicians. It is because my standard is different than theirs: they believe the tenets of the US Constitution represent a higher standard than those of Christ. )

Interesting. So the Christians who vote follow a lower standard than Christ?

Corrupt must be defined. Do you mean by sin? Then we all are corrupt. Or do you mean by factual proven misuse of government power and taxes? Or the entire system despite the good people within it?

It is one thing to vote for known corruption and another to vote with a good conscious.

(Because of this, we cannot begin to discuss political matters with common ground.)

Political matters are either moral, amoral, or immoral. Either a policy promoted by a politician is moral, amoral, or immoral. What is moral is defined by the Bible.

Actually this is not our reality. Most churches are against for example nationwide abortions among many current issues.

Actually this is not our reality. Most churches are against for example nationwide abortions among many current issues. To say the U.S. church is being controlled by the government is false. The only way this currently has occurred is the threat to lose tax exemption or through lawfare and as seen with Covid, many resisted.

2 Chronicles 7:14 If my people who are called by My name humble themselves and pray and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, forgive their sin, and heal their land.

The majority rules in a democracy. If we were a Democracy, then California and New York would elect the president every four years because those two states have the majority of the Population.

That is not the case now. If you violate my individual rights, you can be sued or even placed in jail, even if you are the majority.

I'm only speaking of the definition and not how they are applied.

In reality it goes in this order Democracy+Republic+ Constitution= a government that was far superior than the Greek Democracy or the Roman Republic.

good point, but what makes America's superior is this statement by our Founding Fathers:



From John Adams to Massachusetts Militia, 11 October 1798


Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

The God on who this Nation was founded is the Lifeblood of this Nation. Without GOD, we are done.

Both of you have good points and harmonizing them is how we arrive at a closer approximation or better understanding of the truth.

Now please consider the following policies and decide which ones Christians should support.

For Whom Should I Vote?
(A comparison of policies)

Issue A B

Border Open to unvetted millions-- Control with fence & patrols

Education Socialists indoctrinate students-- Parents approve teachers

Finances Taxes spent to enrich elites-- Tariffs applied to support jobs

Elections No voter ID & no audits-- Voter ID, verifiable results

Pandemics Use as excuse to dictate behavior-- Preserve right of medical choice

Abortion Allow killing of viable fetuses-- Limit killing; prevent pregnancy

Crime Limited protection & punishment-- Prevent, arrest, confine, reform

Energy Depend on unreliable sources-- Use oil/gas but test alternatives

Race Foment division and turmoil-- Unity based on common values

Climate Hype problem; expand regulations-- Practical ways to limit pollution

Economy Print money; eliminate ownership-- Expand middle; ban oligarchy

Politics Marxist/Fascist dictatorship-- Caring capitalism & democracy

Family Parents serve governments-- Parental authority until age 18

Business Regulated by government-- Privately owned; minimal regs

Constitution No longer valued or heeded-- Esteemed as wise & adaptable

Military Employed by politicians-- Preserve peace; PTSD for enemy

Ethics Whatever human wizards decide-- Based mainly on New Testament

Media Subverted by globalist elites-- Fair investigative journalism

Truth Cancel, cover up, flip, persecute-- Scientific, public, common sense

Labor Low wages; profits for stocks-- Pay & benefits; profit-sharing

Healthcare Government controlled, welfare -- Workfare, competitive pricing

Thanks! (I think this may not post correctly, so I hope you can figure it out. It is supposed to be two columns.)

Over...

You should vote for who you think is the person best to represent your positions.


I will not vote for any democrat. they are demonic. haters of GOD and shed innocent blood

Yes, and hopefully our positions are the policies on the right.

At this point I will list a few bones of contention I have with politicians and pundits for y'all to add to if desired.

a. Not quoting exactly or not considering the totality of what someone has said, but instead bloviating about a part out of context,

b. Not valuing substance over style or policy over the way it may be stated,

c. Failing to acknowledge that socialism is a form of immorality, because it has hurt people wherever it has been implemented.

d. Failing to realize that there is no such thing as "free" trade because of tariffs and limits being levied on U.S. imports by other countries.

e. Failing to learn lessons that history teaches, especially regarding wars, which I plan to discuss under "W" when we get there on the Various Moral Issues thread.

f. Failing to acknowledge that murderers need to be engaged and stopped as soon as possible, preferably by armed police, but possibly by citizens carrying concealed hand guns.

g. Saying “Americans” want this or that instead of saying “most” (or some percentage) of Americans are for something per polls.

h. Failing to “get into the weeds” and educate viewers, but rather opining/bloviating superficially,

I. Stating that a party “controls Congress”, when current Senate rules require 60 votes to end a filibuster,

j. Referring to Dems as Progressives, when progressive capitalism was a beneficial policy of the Pubs in the early 1900s, and socialist Dem policies are Regressive.

k. This last one stems from my having been an English teacher: Saying “No” when they agree with the questioner.

Over...

I do not think we have adequately discussed any of these, so may I suggest that we address the issue of migration, which I find one of the most difficult ones to apply Scripture to?

IOW, what is God's will regarding how migration should occur? It surely is not the "king of the hill" [KOTH] violence that has been the main method from the beginning!

What teaching of Scripture may apply to this moral/political issue?

Since KOTH is surely not God’s will, what is His will regarding migration. What biblical teachings are applicable?

After suggesting this topic I did some study and here is what I came up with:

The Bible mentions the migration of Cain (in GN 4:12 & 16) and migrations following the building of the tower at Babel (in GN 11:1-9). Secular histories cite migrations by unknown peoples that established civilizations near the mouths of the Indus, Nile and Euphrates rivers, followed by Akkadians invading the Sumerians and Aryans invading India about 2270 B.C. Abram migrated from Mesopotamia (per GN 12:1-10), then Israel settled in Canaan (GN 35:1-21 & 46:1-7) about the time Sumeria was conquered by Amorites, then Kassites. Moses led the Israelites from Egypt to Canaan (EX 13:17-20, 15:22-16:1, 17:1, 19:1-2, 33:1-2, NM 21:10-31 & NM 33).

NM 33 instructs the Israelites to drive out all of the inhabitants of Canaan so that their idolatry would not give them trouble, and NM 35:33-34 tells them not to pollute or defile the land with bloodshed, so apparently driving out was not supposed to be by means of murder. Listing the history of migrations merely documents that KOTH was the way it always occurred, so now let us consider how migrations OUGHT to have happened in accordance with God’s Will beginning with the migration to America by Europeans.

We begin with the only hint we have had thus far—the proscription against bloodshed/murder. A NT principle that can be applicable is MT 7:12, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” An OT one is EX 20:15, “You shall not steal.” These two commands indicate that when people migrate they must do so with the intention of compensating the owners of the new land rather than of conquering them by means of violence. Thus, murdering the Indians instead of making and keeping treaties was wrong. Ditto for the Indians who did the same. (Death resulting from illness and struggle against natural disasters are other aspects of KOTH.)

Another critical migration that needs to be evaluated is when Jews moved to Palestine following WWII. It began with war or KOTH that has continued ever since. It would seem that God’s will would have been for the Jews to purchase land from Palestinians and obtain a legal deed. Besides being peaceful, it probably would have been cheaper in the long run to pay them $10,000 per acre!

This brings us to consider the migration currently occurring over the U.S. borders. In this case there is a line of people seeking to enter legally via a vetting process, so what justification can there be for people to cut in line by stealing across the border illegally? The right of an individual home owner to require people to enter their houses/walls only if invited seems applicable to a nation regarding control of its borders.

God loves everyone in the world (JN 3:16) and includes all kinds of people in His plan of salvation (GAL 3:28-29, 1TM 2:3-4). Thus, we all have equal rights, which need to be respected as people move about planet Earth. There is no justification for feeling superior to anyone of a different nationality or civilization.

As we have mentioned, migration needs to occur without murder or stealing (MT 19:18). Selfishness by those who have something does not justify stealing by those who lack and covet it. Two wrongs do not make a right. (Hezekiah 6:1) However, the rich should share (2CR 8:14) and the poor should rightly resist hoarders. Those who have an abundance of land or material possessions should realize they have no divine right to hoard it, but on the contrary they have a divine command from God to be compassionate toward the poor.

Paul teaches that those who are able should work (2THS 3:10), so a valid reason for migration would seem to be in order to look for a job. Other considerations include the need to practice birth control in order not to procreate more children than the parents can afford to feed, besides being good stewards of the planet by not over-populating and polluting the world God has given humanity. Also, good governors and employers are needed, who will legislate opportunity and pay fairly.