Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Shouldn't Christians get out of politics?

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 5
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 template Next
  • #46
    Re: Shouldn't Christians get out of politics?

    Originally posted by Putnam View Post
    Gamble, you deserve credit for intellectual integrity. The sources you cite do indeed call on us to renounce the world. And an honest person who seeks to fully implement those teachings would either be Amish or enter a monastery.

    But not all Christians are Amish or monastic. God has seen fit to sustain diverse forms of faith through the centuries, and Tertullian does not speak for all Christians. Now, please don't think that I'm saying that anything goes. There are many wrong teachings, and much in today's Evangelical Christian realm is more marketing than theology. But, still, there have been different points of view about how Christians should relate to the world.

    Can I suggest a book that deals with this topic? "Christ and Culture," by Richard Neibuhr. If is about 50 years old, but is still available at Borders, Amazon, etc.

    Neibuhr recognizes five different views of Christianity and Culture. One of them is that of the ante-Nicean fathers, which he describes as "Christ versus Culture." It holds that the duty of each Christian is to seperate from wordly things, and that the pursuit of holiness lies in withdrawal from the world. You've already cited the basis for this view.

    But Christ versus Culture is not the only view that Christians have legitimately held through the centuries. I'll focus on just one other, but if you read the book you'll learn of all five.

    Christ and Culture in Paradox is Neibuhr's term for the view that each of us has a dual citizenship. We look to Christ alone for spiritual things, but material things and moral and civil duties are owed to the community in which we live.

    Of course this does not allow us to "serve both God and mammon." Jesus said no man can do that. Rather, it requires us to serve God by being the master of mammon. The highest calling in this view is to master the world in order to better serve heaven. (I'm not talking about prosperity doctrine here, either.)

    It is wrong to think of Christianity as a wholly spiritual faith. Buddhism is all about breaking the wheel and entering nirvana. But Christianity is about bearing fruit. C. S. Lewis points out simply that God is not opposed to material -- He created it.

    A shoemaker asked Martin Luther what he should do now that he had become a Christian. Luther answered, "Make a good shoe and sell it for a fair price." This answer has two virtues. First, it exactly parallels the answer given by John the Baptist when he was asked the same question. Second, it recognizes that people need shoes. To love one's neighbor is to help him meet his needs. One of those needs, frankly, is for shoes. So one of the things the world needs is more shoemakers who make a good shoe and sell it for a fair price. True, we don't want well-shod men to go to hell. But neither do we want God's creatures to suffer deprivation when He wants them fed and clothed.

    There is no explicitly Christian culture, and that is one of the unusual things about Christianity. To be a good muslim is to live like a 7th century Arab merchant. But there is no corrollary specification for Christianity. This is because part of the measure of a true Christian is his or her relationship to the society in which he or she lives. Mohammad is the measure of all good things for a muslim, and so they still wipe their asses the way he did, with the fingers of their left hands. (excuse the vulgarity, but it's there in the Hadith But there is no similar adoration of Christ's lifestyle on the part of good Christians. Rather, our view of the best good is that which glorifies God and gives no offense to others.

    I've not given you a convincing reason why Christians should or should not abstain from politics -- either as candidates or by voting. All I've tried to do is contend that the view of Origen and Tertullian and other ante-Nicean fathers is not the only legitimate Christian view. I don't think there is any legitimate disagreement with your position based on those teachings, but there are some entirely different theologies which justify social activities broadly.

    My own view is that politics is pretty much of a cesspool, and that no Christian can succeed in it. There's no Biblical rule against being in politics, but I don't think it is possible to be a good Christian and an effective legislator. When politics was a matter of holding to a principle, Christians could be just as adamant as anyone else. But today's politics are all about compromise: "I'll vote for your abortion bill if you'll support my highway appropriation. Then we'll get him to include our districts in the research grants by promising to vote for gay marriage." That is how politics works today. Again, it is the basic process of politics today on the state and federal level and success depends on playing that game well. I don't think a Christian can succeed at that for long while preserving any moral position.

    First off I want to thank everyone who has taken the time to read this thread especially Anthem and for his dialogue.

    I want to reply to you putnam and as well to Jay.

    I never said or meant to imply that I believe everything that the pre-Constantine writers wrote. On top of that I don't think Gods plan is to live completely outside of this world as a monk or Amish do. If that was Gods plan how could you "love your neighbor as yourself" if you never knew your neighbor how could you love him?

    Putnam I appreciate the book and I may end up reading it depending on how much time I have. In reference to the book and to the pre-Constantine writers I want to say I dislike the thought of grouping christian thought and convictions into a category. I find it more likely that right convictions and expressions of faith are found not in one time or age but overall. A little bit here a little bit there if you will.

    It just so happens that I believe much of the political view of the early church farthers are right one. This isn't due to one verse in the bible or one commentary that I listen to or read. IT is as a collective whole and in my opinion how a conviction should be found.

    Now I want to respond to your reply in parts.

    In my opinion diversity in Christianity isn't proof that God willed it to be so or that such diversity in His name is legitimate. I would use the words "allowed it" rather than "sustained it" but thats just me.

    One of the verses that speaks volumes to me is that of John 17:23.
    Now he is talking to his disciples but not just of that time but of all ages.

    May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

    Unity is something God wants and it is something I hardly see in the name of Christ. What a shame that a prayer that Jesus prayed is no longer strived for by his believers. ITs as if we just expect a disunified Church and no once of time is put into striving for what connects all of us together. This bothers me to no end.

    Now staying on topic hopefully, I wanted to address another thing.

    In your reply in "Christ and Culture Paradox" the remark was made that moral and civil duties where owed to the community in which we live. I do agree to this concept with one huge stipulation, those duties are defined only by God. Many things can be interpreted in the bible as to what those duties are hence the confusion but I do believe that the law of the land should be obeyed when it doesn't contradict Gods laws.

    Much is made of what civil duties are owed but very little is explained with scriptures. You might say that the early church and the apostles never thought of a time when Christians could have a voice in government. My reply to such a statement is simple. If you are a christian then you should believe that God forsaw a time and addressed it in the Bible if you believe in His inspired word. I simply don't see those civil duties defined as some on here do.

    I have exasperated myself in detail why I believe that christians should stay clear of politics and I have more scriptures. One is a city on hill to shine forth into the darkness. The others you can just look up corruption under the NIV and find them.

    My thought process is not "off the rocker" but clear and simple. Governments are corrupt and are not meant for christians to partake in. They are corrupt because they are of this world and made up of men and women who are not christians. Christianity is suppose to be tolerant and for it to be so it can not have its hands inside the worldly cookie jar of power, ie. government.

    You quoted that we should look to Christ alone for spiritual things but civil duties are owed. I look to Christ for all things and can not seperate the two. Respect the authority of governments and pay taxes thats all I see in the Bible.

    Lastly you say christianity view of best good is that which glorifies God and gives no offense to others.

    I couldn't disagree more with this.

    Luke 6:26 says, "Woe to you when all men speak well of you,
    for that is how their fathers treated the false prophets.

    Now don't get me wrong I am not calling you a false prophet but the message of Christ is offensive and persecution will come from this world if christianity is practiced.

    I wanted thank you for the book and for the reply.

    Comment

    • #47
      Re: Shouldn't Christians get out of politics?

      Originally posted by Arcadian View Post
      You are reading it out of context. One objection as DK mentioned was that pagan religion was closely tied to the Roman government. Also in the 1st century church they believe Christ's return was happening very soon so earthly things did not matter as much.

      What are you arguing is the chief reason Christians should stay away from office?

      As to refaining from voting is it wrong to decide where to build a road? Is it wrong to participate in the government by paying taxes, sitting on a jury or even being a public school teacher?

      The ideas of government than and now are so different I don't think it is as easily applicable as you seem to make it.
      The bolded part is what strikes me as hypocritical. Look, it's either the inspired Word of God, or it's a guidebook on how to live your life written by Men who's values may or may not be applicable today.

      You can't say for instance that the OP's bolded parts have no context because times have changed, then sit there and say that being homosexual or a polygamist (which I still haven't found a rock solid Biblical ban on) is a sin because it's in The Bible, ignoring the passage of time.

      It's this sort of wishy-washy "we interpret as we see fit" BS that pushed me away from organized religion. I'm a Deist Christian because the fact is, churches are nothing more than a business with a 2000 year old Mission Statement.

      Comment

      • #48
        Re: Shouldn't Christians get out of politics?

        First off I am sure I am a hypocrit. Now that we have that out of the way, I was referring to the writings of the second century writers not the Bible.
        "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

        "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

        Comment

        • #49
          Re: Shouldn't Christians get out of politics?

          Originally posted by Gamble View Post
          I don't know anywhere in the NT where It says you should participate in a government. Should voting be excluded from that? Am I to give honor where honor is due, of course. THis government has my honor and I do pray for it.

          What is voting to you?
          For me it is the participiation in this government where I help elect the official that best represents my beliefs. My problem is that I do not believe GOd intended my beliefs or my voice to be represented in any government because governments hold both the believer and non-believer. My beliefs as a christian are not of this world nor should they be in this world to govern this world, especially for the non-believer.

          As for Christians in government I will quote Pual and explain my application of this scripture.

          2 Cor 6:14-15
          Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever?

          Let me ask you this how can light represent darkness or darkness represent light. To try as a christian to represent darkness or represent the non-believing community is in my eyes yoking yourself to them.

          On what basis is it? The fact that to do your job in this government means that you are have to reflect the wishes of your community or your constituents now how can a christian represent gay marriage or arbortion?

          If my christian beliefs were never meant for the government of
          non-believers than why should I vote to have them represented in governing non-believers?

          all this sounds to me like religeous extremism. I think the official Christian church does not support such views at any level.

          Comment

          • #50
            Re: Shouldn't Christians get out of politics?

            Originally posted by Kestas View Post
            all this sounds to me like religeous extremism. I think the official Christian church does not support such views at any level.
            I think the bolded part is interesting because here Paul is preaching that the Corinthian church should separate itself from unbelievers, whereas in the Gospels Jesus is often found dining with sinners and unbelievers. His message was that sinners should be embraced and shown a good example. At this point I'd also like to point out that Paul never met Jesus. So, to me, that shows how quickly a philosophy can change over a short period of time, and also how many small contradictions there are in the Bible.

            Comment

            • #51
              Re: Shouldn't Christians get out of politics?

              I will address the issue of the "yoke" that Paul is referring to and relate that to Jesus. You are right Eindar that there are small contradictions in the bible but this is not one of them based on your answer.

              I will also address you Kestas later about religious extremism and I would ask you to define the "official church" as many claim to be the official church.

              To Jay I am sorry for delaying my response. You didn't quote the main scripture that you were defending and I foolishly glossed over it and didn't recognize your meaning. I will also address this later.

              I will also have something for anthem. The main point will be Pauls claim to citizenship and using that to define a belief. I still respect everyones belief I am just asking for a discussion in hopes of better using the scriptures to define sound doctrine.

              To arcadian I apoligize again and everyone who is a christian is in one way or another a hypocrite. Unless that christian can claim he or she is without sin.

              Comment

              • #52
                Re: Shouldn't Christians get out of politics?

                Originally posted by Eindar View Post
                I think the bolded part is interesting because here Paul is preaching that the Corinthian church should separate itself from unbelievers, whereas in the Gospels Jesus is often found dining with sinners and unbelievers. His message was that sinners should be embraced and shown a good example. At this point I'd also like to point out that Paul never met Jesus. So, to me, that shows how quickly a philosophy can change over a short period of time, and also how many small contradictions there are in the Bible.


                Paul urges believers not to form binding relationships with nonbelievers because this might weaken their christian commitment, integrity, or standards.

                But earlier Paul had explained that this did not mean islotating oneself from nonbelievers see 1 Cor 5:9, 10.

                Paul even tells christians to stay with their nonbeloeveing spouses 1 Cor 7:12, 13.



                it is so easy to take one verse and take it out of context. You really need to read the whole passage, the whole book of the bible or at least the whole chapter

                Comment

                • #53
                  Re: Shouldn't Christians get out of politics?

                  Originally posted by Gamble
                  To arcadian I apoligize again
                  All is fine. I offer dancing fruit.
                  "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

                  "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

                  Comment

                  • #54
                    Re: Shouldn't Christians get out of politics?

                    Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                    Paul urges believers not to form binding relationships with nonbelievers because this might weaken their christian commitment, integrity, or standards.

                    But earlier Paul had explained that this did not mean islotating oneself from nonbelievers see 1 Cor 5:9, 10.

                    Paul even tells christians to stay with their nonbeloeveing spouses 1 Cor 7:12, 13.



                    it is so easy to take one verse and take it out of context. You really need to read the whole passage, the whole book of the bible or at least the whole chapter

                    I've read about 80% of The Bible, including 5 years service as an acolyte at my church and 5 years on my grade school's Bible Quiz team, serving as captain my 8th grade year. Then, I had 4 straight years of bible study in High School.

                    I understand the inconsistencies, and how things can be taken out of context.

                    Comment

                    • #55
                      Re: Shouldn't Christians get out of politics?

                      Originally posted by Jay@Section19 View Post
                      Wow. I'm not sure I get this thread, but my head's spinning.

                      I do think that Christians should disassociate themselves from the Republican Party.

                      And the Democratic Party does not seem genuinely interested in filling that void (and that's probably a good thing).

                      I can understand an argument to get Christians out of the (major) political parties as each party has goals/ platforms that contradict what (at least me/ my family) stand for.

                      But I can't understand this approach. For example, based on Jesus' teaching it is our responsiblity to be stewards of social justice. Regardless of the political climate, that should be important to Christians and they should - at the very least - stand up for "the least of these" from getting run over by the rich and powerful, or corrupt judges, or the other examples cited by Jesus.
                      Alright JAy I am finally getting around to this, sorry I have been so busy.

                      The scripture you are refering to is in Matt 25:31-46 and I will post it a little later. If you are going to use that scripture I think it is only appropriate to define the "least of these". If I follow your logic the least of these is refering to non-christians and christians alike. If I use this scripture in opposite of your stance I could say that the least of these is refering to God's people, maybe Jew or Jewish Christians at the time.

                      Both are hard defend as this is a parable but I would encourage you to look at who he is talking too. Understanding parables is a difficult business but the audience of parables helps. If his disciples are present why would they think that Jesus was talking about non-christians. Remember the phrase the least of these or the least in the kingdom of GOd was used before in his teaching about the kingdom of GOd. One was in reference to John the baptist and making a comparison with christians to Jews.

                      I am taking a dangerous stance in this parable if I just use this parable alone but I believe in appling more than one scripture as I am sure you do too.

                      I do believe in a just God and a God who defends the weak and helpless either in this life or the next. However I do not think God intended to have his disciples make this world a better place for the sake of just doing it.

                      I believe God wants glory and a people that will represent HIM in this world spiritually. Social justice is a way to do that but can God get the glory in a modern democracy? I really don't think so because a modern democracy is suppose to reflect all religious views on social justice and not just one. ALot of christians understand that our government can't play favorites or give glory to the Christian God and not another. Should I take the money of a non-christian to glorify "my" GOd. So how can God get the glory and call people to him through governmental social justice if the government refuses by law to do that very thing.

                      What would be the point of standing up for social justice by the means of a government if the end goal wasn't to save a persons soul for GOd?

                      You may think that christian seperation from the government is nutts and irresponsible on my part and I am ok with that.

                      I see christianity seperating itslelf from government as a way to shine the light of GOd through this world. The city is on a hill for a reason. ITs elevated above this world so that its light can shine to everyone. What if the city was not elevated but on a plane; could the light shine to everyone? THe purpose of a christian in my eyes is to bring people to God by shining HIS light to them not to simply make their lives better.

                      Matt 5:14-15
                      "You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house.

                      The depravity of this world makes christianity stand apart from this world. My purpose isn't to elevate this world to the heights of christianity because this is impossible and in my eyes not GOds intention for me or the church.

                      My point for this discussion was to not condemn anyone for voting or having political ambition. I simply want people to consider such questions and not just have a conviction for the sake of having it. Much of christianity today is finding a belief and standing by it without further development or study. Becuase my church thinks this so do I kind of thinking. To me this is unwise and very prevelant in todays christianity. I seek to influence or change this easy way of thinking and challenge people to not just blindly adhere to things they should understand for themselves.

                      Thanks again for actually giving some verses and engaging in the conversation.

                      "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

                      "Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
                      "Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?' "The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

                      Just saw this, lol, he says brothers.......

                      Comment

                      • #56
                        Re: Shouldn't Christians get out of politics?

                        Originally posted by Gamble
                        I will also address you Kestas <...> and I would ask you to define the "official church" as many claim to be the official church.
                        well, by the official Christian (Catholic) church I ment Vatican first and foremost, but also Orthodox churches (meaning Patriarchy of Moscow as a governing body of the eastern Orthodox Church and so on) and Protestant church (unfortunately I'm unable to name the governing bodies of the main branches of the Protestant church).. anyways, I seriously doubt that any substantial branch of Christian church (meaning its governing body) would ever encourage its members not to participate in pollitics. not in the modern era, at least. if it were to do so, it would not gather any aproval from major churches and would probably be called a sect, simple as that. it's members, on the other hand, should probably be considered religeous fanatics. not that we have not seen such groups emerging - they exist in every country and in every society, unfortunatelly.
                        we can see what results from various Islamic groups calling for a religion-first approach in polytics - this leads nowhere. It could have been (and was) valuable a few hundred of a few thousand years ago, but now I believe humanity does not need it at all. besides, it can develop into a religion-only approach, which, if moved to politics, is totally destructive, imho. in the current sircumstances this is extremism at its purest and it should be dealt with at all levels possible, no matter what the religion that propagates it is.

                        Comment

                        • #57
                          Re: Shouldn't Christians get out of politics?

                          Kestas I can get to your response latter in the day but you bring up church government which is also interesting. Also religious extremism is all in the eye of the beholder and I will have scriptures for that concept.

                          Comment

                          • #58
                            Re: Shouldn't Christians get out of politics?

                            Gamble,

                            A few weeks from now I'm scheduled to have surgery on my eyes. The surgeon will insert a sharp tool behind my eyeball and carve away a layer of bone in order to relieve pressure that is straining my optic nerve and causing double vision. To cut the bone, he'll have to apply firm pressure, but he'll be working within a millimeter of the optic nerve, any damage to which will immediately blind me.

                            The doctor happens to be a Christian. He also is eminent in the field of optical surgery, with several certificates of excellence on his wall in addition to the diplomas.

                            Which of his qualities is going to matter more when he starts to carve my skull? To me, I'm happy with both his spiritual and vocational qualification.

                            Now, I recognize that I'm moving away from the question of politics, but what you are saying is that only spiritual things should matter to Christians and that by being spiritual we will please God and shine before the world. That is clear in the statement you made recently to Jay.

                            Originally posted by Gamble
                            What would be the point of standing up for social justice by the means of a government if the end goal wasn't to save a persons soul for God?
                            The view you espouse results in someone who will pray for relief of my vision problem, and tell me to have faith about it. And that's all. The Reformation view that secular work also matters results in a doctor who has the knowledge and dexterity to do the surgery along with the Christian reasons for doing it well.

                            The view you are defending in this thread is almost monastic in its separation of spiritual and worldly things. And that is a valid view, and a good one for any who undertakes the separation in an attitude of piety and self-denial. But there is great hypocrisy in someone why says, "The world is bad, so I'm good if I oppose it."

                            Originally posted by Gamble
                            The depravity of this world makes christianity stand apart from this world.

                            Let me tell you about Rudolf. I worked 7 years as a missionary in Central Asia. My wife and I established a community service agency where we taught English, operated a small business incubator, and facilitated numerous medical assistance programs. Basically, we used our capabilities and contacts and resources to help the community in every way we could, sacrificing to serve them not just on Sunday but 24/7. We also assisted five new cell groups to form and grow into churches. During our 5th year, Rudolf and his family came to work with us. He's German from a Brethran/Anabaptist background, with views very similar to yours.

                            To begin with, Rudolf was collegial, but over time he withdrew from all our work -- even the village evangelism. All he wanted to do was sit in the oldest and best established indigenous church and hang out with the leaders of that group -- to spend time among the only people in the province who didn't need to hear about Jesus. It became clear that his views were compelling him to avoid the world to the greatest extreme, and that the reason he became a missionary in the first place was not to "go into all the world and preach the gospel," but because he wanted to leave Germany and get paid for it. He worried about "the depravity of this world" and was unwilling to make any effort to reform even a little corner of it. So he found a way "to stand apart" from it and get paid for it.

                            Trouble was, he didn't do anything about the depravity in his own heart.

                            He was useless as a missionary. Worse, he took his insularity to such a degree that he actually opposed our efforts to evangelize villages or assist other cell groups. He thought the only deserving people in the country were him and the established church that shielded him. He boldly and defiantly neglected responsibilities that the agency had given him, saying, "I'm with the church. those things don't matter." Eventually his hand reached for money from our nonprofit agency's development fund, and he gave several hundred dollars to his friends for schemes that did not meet the criteria we'd established for business projects. And then he lied about what he had done. And he kept lying until our whole program was disbanded by the European heads of the mission agency we worked for. He was willing to see it ruined, because he saw no value in it. Moreover, he was willing to bear false witness in order to cause its ruin.

                            What I want you to think about is this: His theology is exactly the same as yours. He believed that "the depravity of this world makes Christianity stand apart." Thus he believed that by standing apart, he was practicing Christianity. Finally, he came to believe that active opposition by even dishonest means to anything else but his little bubble was God's Will.

                            Rudolf was, and is, a scoundrel. He's a liar and a coward. I trust you are none of those things. Just please remember that “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; Who can know it? I, the Lord, search the heart, I test the mind, even to give every man according to his ways, according to the fruit of his doings." Jeremiah 17:9-10

                            The depravity of the world cannot hurt us, but the depravity of an unregenerate heart is deadly.

                            Back to the political topic: You don't have to vote in this election. I haven't voted since 1992, and I wouldn't vote this time if I didn't dislike Hostettler so much. But I appeal to you to abandon the notion that there is merit in judging others or defining evil as the other guy.
                            And I won't be here to see the day
                            It all dries up and blows away
                            I'd hang around just to see
                            But they never had much use for me
                            In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                            Comment

                            • #59
                              Re: Shouldn't Christians get out of politics?

                              Originally posted by Putnam View Post

                              The view you espouse results in someone who will pray for relief of my vision problem, and tell me to have faith about it. And that's all. The Reformation view that secular work also matters results in a doctor who has the knowledge and dexterity to do the surgery along with the Christian reasons for doing it well.

                              The view you are defending in this thread is almost monastic in its separation of spiritual and worldly things. But I appeal to you to abandon the notion that there is merit in judging others or defining evil as the other guy.
                              I told UB that I did not believe in the total separation to this world. I have read to many scriptures that can not support such a belief. In my post to UB or Jay I said that my belief concerning politics is very similar to that of the pre-Constantaine writers. I do not believe that these men have it all right nor do I believe their doctrine is all wrong concerning the world.

                              I do believe Paul made some cranking tents for the Lord in his service to others.

                              Acts 18:1-4
                              After this, Paul left Athens and went to Corinth. There he met a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had ordered all the Jews to leave Rome. Paul went to see them, and because he was a tentmaker as they were, he stayed and worked with them.

                              I am not talking about a total separation and judgment of others. I do not condemn anyone if they want a political view or not. I don't agree with getting into social justice for the sake of it. I believe getting into social justice should bring a glory to GOd outwardlly that the law prohibits. Could I be wrong? Sure but my logic isn't that hard to follow especially with the amount of scriptures I have quoted.

                              I did enjoy the story by the way and I am sorry if I am not being clear. I was not blessed with the writings skills of Peck or most of you for that matter.

                              Comment

                              • #60
                                Re: Shouldn't Christians get out of politics?

                                Yet another reason why I love the Catholic Church...

                                The duties of citizens

                                2238 Those subject to authority should regard those in authority as representatives of God, who has made them stewards of his gifts: "Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution. . . . Live as free men, yet without using your freedom as a pretext for evil; but live as servants of God." Their loyal collaboration includes the right, and at times the duty, to voice their just criticisms of that which seems harmful to the dignity of persons and to the good of the community.

                                2239 It is the duty of citizens to contribute along with the civil authorities to the good of society in a spirit of truth, justice, solidarity, and freedom. The love and service of one's country follow from the duty of gratitude and belong to the order of charity. Submission to legitimate authorities and service of the common good require citizens to fulfill their roles in the life of the political community.

                                2240 Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one's country:

                                Pay to all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.

                                [Christians] reside in their own nations, but as resident aliens. They participate in all things as citizens and endure all things as foreigners. . . . They obey the established laws and their way of life surpasses the laws. . . . So noble is the position to which God has assigned them that they are not allowed to desert it.

                                The Apostle exhorts us to offer prayers and thanksgiving for kings and all who exercise authority, "that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way."

                                2241 The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.

                                Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants' duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.

                                2242 The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel. Refusing obedience to civil authorities, when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience, finds its justification in the distinction between serving God and serving the political community. "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." "We must obey God rather than men":

                                When citizens are under the oppression of a public authority which oversteps its competence, they should still not refuse to give or to do what is objectively demanded of them by the common good; but it is legitimate for them to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens against the abuse of this authority within the limits of the natural law and the Law of the Gospel.
                                Originally posted by Natston;n3510291
                                I want the people to know that they still have 2 out of the 3 T.J.s working for them, and that ain't bad...

                                Comment

                                Previous 1 2 3 4 5 template Next
                                Working...
                                X