Do they think we're morons?

No - because then I would be acting against what I percieve to be the
right way to act - which would itself be a sin.

Phil

 

An oxymoron.

No. That is using the advantages that you have in order to help Gods
church.

Phil

 

Ah - you being the expert no doubt.

OK - try these:

Hebrews 11:13-14

13 All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did
not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them
from a distance. And they admitted that they were aliens and strangers
on earth. 14People who say such things show that they are looking for a
country of their own.

Now explain to me how "aliens and strangers" can be part of a
Government in a land they don't belong in.

Also John 18:36 (Jesus at his trial being asked about being "King of
the Jews" says specifically that his followers are "not of this world
else they would fight").

Which establishes a principle - if you are going to serve God then you
can *only* serve him (look up the sermon on the mount where this comes
from). You can't serve two masters with contradictory requirements.

Jesus used mammon because that was the context that he was talking in.
But the principle he establishes is valid for other contexts too.

Oh yes. 30 years worth of Biblical studies might have given me a small
idea what it is about.. Certainly more than a quick use of Google.

Phil

 

Because all we are doing is electing people who will actually oranise
the things that we ask them to do. They have no 'power' in a political
sense.

It depends. In a Roman context - no. In an OT Jewish context - yes.
Look up Urim and Thummin.

Phil

 

I agree entirely - a case in point being the KJV use of the word
'Lucifer' in regard of the King of Tyre. That word is purely a
translation of the original phrase ('LightBringer') that came (via
Catholic mythology) of represent their idea of a literal spirit of
evil.

Context is vital when examining the meaning of a word or phrase. The
phrase not of this world is used a lot in Jesus' prayer in John 17 and
is used in order to emphasise the seperation of the believer from the
human order of things (which does indeed include the morals and
ethics).

It is linked to the idea of being holy - the original word used
in the NT for holy means "seperated out".

There are necessities of life that we are commanded to perform - "if a
man will not work then neither shall he eat" type of thing. So it is
incumbent on us to work for our living, to support our families, to
support the church and give generously to those in need.

Phil

 

You still haven't explained why you think it is wrong.

And I suspect you have *no* idea about what I look to for salvation.

Phil

 

I thought she was great in Kill Bill.

 

Nonsense.

What about political aims that directly echo the teachings of Jesus
Christ? Isn't it in accordance with those teachings that good
Christians strive for justice?

 

In uk.rec.motorcycles, Dan White amazed us all with this pearl of
wisdom:

 

My position certainly isn't impossible, tho I agree it would be
unlikely for everyone to take your position. But that isn't the
point. I'm saying that you enjoy the benefits of living in a
democracy, but are unwilling to fulfill the responsibility that doing
so requires. It's freeloading.

 

If Britain ceased to be a democracy, would you mind? Already, with
turnouts below 50%, the validity of our democracy can be questioned.
If it feel much further, and (for sake of argument), some 'state of
emergency' (I dunno - maybe a big terrorist attack) caused the
government to cancel the elections, would it bother you?

 

Of course I would mind because it would make my life considerably less
pleasant
I would continue to obey the law as I do now (with the usual caveat
of Gods laws over-riding human laws) and attempt to follow the dictates
of my faith as I do now.

As a person? Yes. As a Christian? No.

Phil

 

If you are coming from a basis of "Christians are not permitted to take
part in the political process" then it is entirely reasonable.

On a personal level? Entirely. "Religion that God accepts as perfect is
to look after widows and orphans in their distress (ie - do good works)
and to keep onself unstained by the world".

By taking part in a political process? No.

Phil

 

I'd go with a quick use of Google in preference to 30 years of being taught
how to read the Bible in an extremely narrow and specific manner without
applying any of your own intelligence.

--
AndrewR, D.Bot (Celeritas)
Kawasaki ZX-6R J1, Fiat Coupe 20v Turbo
BOTAFOT#2,ITJWTFO#6,UKRMRM#1/13a,MCT#1,DFV#2,SKoGA#0 (and KotL)
BotToS#5,SBS#25,IbW#34, DS#5, COSOC# Suspended, KotTFSTR#
The speccy Geordie twat.

 

I still haven't seen any absolutely unequivocal biblical basis for
that standpoint.

Honestly (and this isn't meant as a mud-throwing insult, more a
statement of my opinion) I think you are a disgrace to Christians
everywhere. I'm atheist, but my experience of practising Christians
is absolutely and entirely positive. But you do them an enormous
dis-service.

 

I don't much care about you as a Christian. However, you;ve finally
admitted that you "enjoy" the benefits of democracy, and would be
sorry if it were taken away from you. And yet you refuse to
participate in a the basic requirement of that democracy. Hence I
called you a freeloader - gaining benefits of something for which you
don't contribute, when you should.

I don't see much point in taking this further. We both seem fairly
well set in our views of the world.

 

Champ wrote

Wrong attitude entirely, all we have to do then is enforce the laws
about lords and lunatics not being able to vote and you would all be
happy it seems to me.