Christians in Politics pt 2

Let's get this train started, fire up them wheels.

You state your position as supporting the Left but leaning Right.

What is it about the Left that merits your support?

What is it about the Right that has you leaning that direction?

Why do you continue to support the Left if they do not support your beliefs?

Or vice versa. Doesn't matter with politics. We can go either direction.

 

Yep, by Cream on the album Wheels of Fire.

I am asking you about your politics.

Why do you support what ever party you support? To what end?

I have been open about my views. You gave been critical, but what about your views?

You know why I am apolitical in terms of secular politics.

Why are you political?

 

What I am asking is why you hold specific political views - to what end?

If you are a Democrat, why?

If you are a Republican, why?

I understand the issue of values, but it is granted that people who engage in politics will do so in accordance with their values. Muslims who are concerned with SSM will lean to the GOP. Atheists who oppose abortion will lean GOP. Buddhists whose primary concern is man-made climate change will lean DNC.

I get that.

But as a Christian why do you support whatever political party you support? To what end?

 

I agree with the GOP platform (so far, anyway). And I agree with conservative values.

You and I probably have the same set of values (I suspect @SGO does as well).

So my question is why you vote conservative, that is, to what end? Why support a conservative political party?

 

Yes, there are vocations (like prostitution, the porn industry, cult leaders, etc.) that are un-Christian.

But your insistance that saying one vocation is wrong is to say all vocations are wrong is a faulty logic.

Saying Christians should not be involved vocationally in the porn industry does not mean Christians should not be involved in another vocation (like plumbing).

The reason I believe Christians should not be involved in secular politics has nothing to do with vocation. It has to do with the nature of vocations applied to a specific context.

There is nothing wrong with a Christian bring a photographer. There is a lot wrong with a Christian photographer becoming involved with the porn industry.

There is nothing wrong with a Christian being involved in the affairs of the Church, the ministry of the gospel, holding a leadership position in the congregation, etc. There is a lot wrong by assuming those roles in the affairs of the World.

Thus is not mere opinion. It was the position of the church for centuries. Antiquity does not prove the position correct, but it does prove it a biblically based position and a legitimate interpretation.

Paul tells us not to judge those outside the church. You say there is nothing wrong with judging those outside the church.

Christ said the World is opposed to God, is already condemned, is fading, and is something we are called out from. You say it is fine to engage in the affairs of the world.

Peter said we are to be separated from the world, to exist as a holy people. You say we are to engage the world by becoming a part of the world system.

Jesus said that those who become caught up in the affairs of the world will perish. You say we are called to be a part of worldly affairs.

The credible reasons are there, you just cannot see them. Your position is not only mere opinion, it is justification for active rebellion against God - not because I am right and you are wrong but because you fail to even engage those passages.

You just put the blind eye to the scope and complain you cannot see.

 

I like the platform (they express my values as well).

But why take these to secular politics? That is what I am trying to understand. To what end?

Is it to try and make the nation mimic a theocracy?

Or to create laws by which people will behave godly and have a moral appearance to "please God" (like the laws the Pharisees made for the Jews)?

Is it to oppress non-Christians in a secular society?

Or to make the World (enemies of God) appear as if they are His children?

I just do not understand the end goal

 

The point is not for me just insist I am correct and others insist I am wrong. It is not opinion vs opinion (that would be useless).

I have provided Scripture and historical reference for my beliefs.

The appropriate opposition to my view is to state your beliefs, provide Scripture (and any other evidences) and then we can look at interpretations and reasoning.

But just ignoring the reason for my position and insisting it is wrong is not the way to go.

I am not trying to make others believe as I do, but at the same time I will argue my beliefs just as strongly as I would like those who oppose my view to argue theirs.

 

Thanks for your insight. I agree those are morality issues that can easily be divorced from Christianity.

I do view abortion differently (I agree it is wrong, but I guess I still link the reason it is wrong to my faith).

The issue I can see with being involved with politics as an opportunity to witness to people is that politics is devisive. You risk alienating a group based on political views (or worse, discrediting your faith in their eyes).

That said, I still maintain we each are responsible for our own actions and accountable to God. We do not encourage other Christians to violate their conscience. So I say be the best Christian at whatever you do.

 

No.

 

You are mistaken.

Jesus did not die so that we would have the right to vote. For Christians, rights are things we lay aside for our breathers. The right to be called a child of God is enough....for me anyway.

Just who do you believed died to give us the right to vote? When was voting made a duty of citizenship?

 

Sure. I am pretty sure Germans are thankful that they are born in Germany. Citizens of the UK, that they were born there. Of Canada, that they were born there.

But we are not speaking about being thankful for the countries in which we were born.

You made some unsubstantiated claims.

You said that voting was a duty, but you have not provided anything from the U.S. Constitution stating that citizens have the duty to vote.

You said that people have died for our "right to vote", but you have not said who died, much less fought, so that Americans could vote or that people fought to make sure that we did not have the right to abstain from voting.