Christian principles in relation to government

I was talking about the historical situation Phat, I don't want to get into current specifics on this thread, I really don't want to argue politics here. I'd like to keep it general. Although I've already lost my original idea of what I wanted to do here so I should just stop and rethink it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

What does that have to do with what I posted and what you quoted.

Faith is arguing that conservatism makes a nation more prosperous. You respond: You and I have discussed the reality of global economics before.

Will current administrative policies help national prosperity? Why or why not and why do you think national prosperity is a "bumper sticker" slogan?

​

If Christian principles include helping the poor while I myself am poor, I might have been so inclined to elect a leader who would make my wallet great again.

---

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith

You still have not explained what "National Prosperity" means Phat.The US is without a doubt a wealthy nation. here is empty space and wind and oil and timber and minerals and coal and hydroelectric sources for poser.But what does that mean to YOU?If someone comes in you store and says "The Nation is Prosperous" when you ask for payment does that count? Or do you prefer that you get money?It is what the wealth provides that is important not how much wealth there is. If all the wealth goes to corporations who then move the money out of the US, will that help you?If (as it seems to be in the US) that more and more of the wealth is gathered into fewer and fewer hands, will that help you?If the Supreme Court extends the recent decision banning the right of individuals to create a class action lawsuit and instead submit to individual arbitration gets extended to cover the right of workers to band together to bargain as a class, will that help you?"National Prosperity" just like "A living Jesus" simply fits on a bumper sticker but means whatever the reader wants it to mean.Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

There is no point left. If you just want to post platitudes and then not defend those things when people point out that those things don't work when people ask specific questions, then what's left to talk about.Beyond that, let's assume that your premise that Jesus words do not apply to governments is correct. Do you think that relieves the obligation for Christians when they vote or participate in government to apply Christian principles? Is Jesus really pleasef when you dismantle the health care system to give rich folks, who find it more difficult to be saved, even more money? I certainly do not.I can respect someone who voted for Trump because they did not want Hilary picking Supreme Court Justices. But none of that translates into agreement with Trump's specific policies. If you don't have a clue about what those actually are, then why not put this thread out of our misery.

There is a balance. If my union pushes the corporation too much, they may close. If we were weakened or disbanded, they likely would find people willing to work for less. Faith may argue that the corporate stockholders would be Christians through offering job opportunities and great sales for customers to increase business. She may see the union as a liberal nazi stronghold. I'm not sure. Good point. What makes us think that conservatism has any national allegiance?
Faith will likely argue that her topic is focusing on national conservative ideology in a Christian context and that we as a nation need to become less secular and move back to our Christian precepts (if it can be demonstrated that we once had them)I would argue that unionism is potentially Christian in that it helps all of the workers' petition Caesar collectively. Critics would view a union as a headless beast. The metaphor suggests that the body of Christ has a head (Christ) and the body of the antichrist has either no head (rampant socialism) or many heads of demons.

Two thousand years ago or so, when the metaphor was written, was the head seen as the decision-making member? it seems to me that the Bible says decisions are made by the heart. The head is what gets chopped off if the body screws up.

You seemed to have skipped over this:

quote:

---

If the Supreme Court extends the recent decision banning the right of individuals to create a class action lawsuit and instead submit to individual arbitration gets extended to cover the right of workers to band together to bargain as a class, will that help you?

---

You are following the recent SCOTUS rulings I imagine?

It's a shame really. Conservative Christians have historically tried to impose their views of individual morality through government actions, and try to justify their support of unchristian government actions by saying Jesus wasn't about government actions.So gay marriage? The government should not allow it.
Drinking on Sunday? Government should forbid it.And so on.But when the government proposes sharing the wealth? Abomination! Outrage!

quote:

---

But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition...Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy; That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate;

---

1 Tim 6and

quote:

---

When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.
What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.

---

1 Corinthians I'm pretty sure God has had some things to say about rulers, governments and nations that act in an ungodly way for their own sakes. Trump recently blamed those unfair policies on Democrats, but they're his policies. Under Obama families that were caught crossing the border would be housed together. Under Trump the children are sent to juvenile detention centres, away from their parents resulting in about 700 children being separated from their parents. It was mean to be a 'tough deterrent', but children are suffering so I'm not sure that can be justified.And I think it is fair to criticize Trump as an individual. Sure - the Conservative government is a group but it's made of individuals and they all have individual choices. If those individual choices are bad, they can be criticized. We all understand that governance is a sphere unlike personal inter-relations. But when the policies you enact cause problems you can't use that as a defence for them.Trump may claim to represent those that voted for him - although there are those that suggest they aren't getting what they voted for and they regret their vote - but that just means they too are being unChristian.

quote:

---

Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.

---

quote:

---

But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

---

quote:

---

Thou shalt not oppress an hired servant that is poor and needy, whether he be of thy brethren, or of thy strangers that are in thy land within thy gates:

---

quote:

---

And Solomon numbered all the strangers that were in the land of Israel, after the numbering wherewith David his father had numbered them; and they were found an hundred and fifty thousand and three thousand and six hundred. And he set threescore and ten thousand of them to be bearers of burdens, and fourscore thousand to be hewers in the mountain, and three thousand and six hundred overseers to set the people a work.

---

quote:

---

And the sons of strangers shall build up thy walls, and their kings shall minister unto thee: for in my wrath I smote thee, but in my favour have I had mercy on thee. Therefore thy gates shall be open continually; they shall not be shut day nor night; that men may bring unto thee the forces of the Gentiles, and that their kings may be brought.

---

quote:

---

And strangers shall stand and feed your flocks, and the sons of the alien shall be your plowmen and your vinedressers.

---

quote:

---

Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

---

But it is odd, is it not - that we didn't hear this when Obama was in power. Then it was fine to criticize him because 'There is absolutely nothing Christian about anything he says' or to say 'Obama's behavior...would be a deceit to make it possible for him to become President {since he secretly might be a Muslim}'. If Obama thinks making pharmacists sell the morning after pill, regardless of their religious views, is in the national interest this is 'awful'. As a poster here called Faith once said

quote:

---

God will judge a nation for its sins...It's a tradition for Presidents to quote the Bible or sound Christian. But Obama didn't say anything about God's judgment. The point I'm trying to make here is that God's judgment on nations is not some weird oddball idea of my own

---

Jesus was God, I'm told. So Jesus might have spoken with individuals - but individuals with power are no more exempt for the decisions they take.

As I believe I said, government is to follow LAW, but Jesus spoke to individuals about personal behavior. The Red Letter people are not talking about Law they are talking about Gospel and Gospel does not apply to government though Biblical Law does. I'm sorry I'm not up to more right now but I hope I can come back and do your post more justice.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Keep in mind that your audience here at EvC does not recognize Biblical authority....but assuming they did, lets take the NT phrase Render unto Caesar that which is Caesars and God what is Gods.Can we first say that NT principals are the same as OT principals?As a group, should conservatives worry more about Caesar or about God? Is there a conflict between the two?

yeah, I have heard...but am not up on it...I will read this link when I get home from work.

Trump is an individual, the legislature is composed of individuals and the voters are individuals. And the Gospel is the fulfilment of the Law isn't it?

For the purpose of this discussion, participants seem to be accepting that premise. What people are rejecting is the idea that people in government are not supposed to apply those principles. None of the quoted material Faith cites says anything like that.Render under Ceaser meant that you pay your taxes but follow Jesus. It was about obeying the law of the state and not about what laws and policies Christians ought to support. Did Christians think getting thrown to lions was okay? Were they supposed to support that if their votes could make a difference?What I see here is simply another excuse for individual Christians not to follow Jesus teachings. I would throw that excuse on the same heap that I would throw Dispensationalism. And then I'd take a match to that heap.Have you ever heard of Jubilee? Have you heard of the direction to leave portions of each crop in the fields for gleaning? Those are examples of commands to a nation of individual and not to just individuals about taking care of their poorer neighbors. The entire premise of this thread is hogwash. It is not supported in the Bible. It is that lack of support and not lack of respect for Biblical authority that is being expressed here. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Faith’s ideas of which Christian Principles should influence government has much more to do with her politics and prejudices - and the convenience of the moment - than any coherent criteria.As usual.