Do they think we're morons?

Interestingly, I didn't know what either of my parents voted until last
election. My Mum never would tell me when I was younger and at home,
and once I left it wasn't discussed as much. Then it was discussed
again and I know how she votes.

I *do* know where my Great Grandfather stood, though, and I have a long
service certificate to show me.

--
John

SV650
Black it is
and naked

 

Is it the same way as you? Bearing in mind that you will have been
bought up exposed to you parents values (probably) I'd have thought it
likely.

I'm sorry - that means nothing to me - can you exlplain or is it secret?

 

No, not entirely, although we've floated around the same region: labour
/ lib dem some green voting.

I still can only guess what my Dad used to vote (No longer UK based)

I've always tended to be a bit more left than my Mum, thouhg she is
learning.

You are probably right in the main though, that to a large extent my own
assumptions and voting habits are influenced by upbringing and inherited
values.

I was just reflecting on the fact that I know nothing for sure about my
parents voting habits, or even my grnadparents.

By great Grandad was, however, his town's first ever Labour Councillor
and received a certificate for long service to the party.


--
John

SV650
Black it is
and naked

 

Bear wrote:

So what you're saying is you've turned full circle and are planning to
vote tory again?


--
John

SV650
Black it is
and naked

 

My main difficulty at present is that the currnet Labour party have more
or less moved to cover the ground which was once the domain of the
tories. Pre Thatcher Tories maybe, but tories all the same.

--
John

SV650
Black it is
and naked

 

In some areas they have gone much further to the right than the Tories
were under Maggie. They've done things to reduce the freedom and
rights of the individual that would have made her mouth water during
the miner's strike.

 

<waves> At least AFAIK I vote differently from both of my parents.
--
Catman MIB#14 SKoGA#6 TEAR#4 BOTAFOF#38 Apostle#21 COSOC#3
Tyger, Tyger Burning Bright (Remove rust to reply)
Alfa 116 Giulietta 3.0l (Really) Sprint 1.7 155 TS
Triumph Speed Triple: Black with extra black bits
www.cuore-sportivo.co.uk

 

Funnily enough, I have the same politics as my parents, broadly
speaking. We disagree about certain aspects of course.

But then it gets interesting: my Dad - as some people will know - is a
Church of England minister, and my Mum is a committed Christian. In
fact, they see their politics as being absolutely in accordance with
their beliefs; they can point to the teachings of Jesus and show how
this maps quite clearly to traditional socialist objectives.

 

I have made this point in the past - in response to an extremely
hysterical post from one of the "commune" (who were, I think, more
un-moving and rigid in their blanket condemnation of all religious
types than any current posters).


I do admire Phil for his patience in responding to the posts of
disagreement.

I take issue with him when I think he's flying in the face of the
teachings of Christ (something I know a little about). This is one
such circumstance.

I also take issue with him when he "toes the party line" on issues
such as Israel, virgin birth, water into wine - and other matters that
everyone else takes a more pragmatic view, given that the stuff was
written in a different time. You have to remember that Phil's party
is a party of nobodies, utterly disregarded by the major players.
That doesn't make his sect /wrong/, necessarily, but there are reasons
for the arm's length that the established churches/religions keep;
Phil's mob's inflexible, doctrinal stance is what gets religion a bad
name, and it's what is holding up progress and understanding and
co-operation between different religions. Whether it's Phil and his
bunch of middle-class happy-clappys in leafy Swindon, or illiterate
radicals believing their immam when he tells them that the Koran says
that it's right to kill infidels - it's all keeping conflict alive and
well and affecting all of us adversely.

My experience means I know that I know that religious faith and
intelligence are not mutually exclusive.

 

I have never denied it.

I refuse (not because I can't be bothered) but because of my religious
principles (and am prepared to stand up for those principles even if it
would make my life considerably less pleasant).

Yes - I am fortunate that I live in a moderate modern democracy - but
even if I lived in a totalitarian dictatorship I would still not take
part in the political process.

Fine - I can't control how you decide to see me other than by
explaining why I do what I do.

I assume that you consider people who don't vote out of apathy
freeloaders too?

Indeed. Each to their own and all that.

Phil

 

*Sigh*

Phil

 

Then you haven't been listening.

You are of course entitled to your opinion.

Can I ask you to explain why?

Phil

 

And what are they 'sent out into the world' to do? To proclaim the
Gospel and preach to all..

Not to man the barricades! As Jesus said at his trial: "If my kingdom
was of this world my followers would fight - but it is not" (my
paraphrase).

It does mean that one has to choose ones employer fairly carefully (ie
- no working for people who make weapons for example) and wherever
possible work for people who run their businesses in an ethical and
responsible fashion.

And yes - in the days I was EKS I have left contracts where I was
working for people who failed that criteria.

It also applies to investment - our investments are in ethical funds.
They don't return as big a return but at least you know that you are
not funding the selling of weapons to the 3rd world.

Phil

 

Firstly - it's not just a 'bit of desert' - it is the land promised to
Abraham.
Secondly - since 1890 there has been bodies keen to re-estblish Israel
as a homeland for the Jews (which BTW has to happen before the return
of Christ). Very few Jews wanted to go there because their lives were
too comfortable.

Look up the word "return of Christ" or "millenial age".

Phil

 

And we go back to: "We preach Christ crucified, foolishness to the
Gentiles and a stumbling-block to the Jews".

This next bit is not directed specifically at you but at all who have
judged my beliefs without knowledge.

Let me be blunt - I care very little whether you agree with my
viewpoint because you have no idea about Biblical doctrine and even
less desire to find out by means of study. You see everything from
ahuman point of view and do not seem to comprehend that others take a
different view for good and valid reasons of their own.




Yes - I read the Bible in a 'narrow and specific manner' because that
it what it needs - Biblical theology is not a 'broad road' but a very
precise one where doctrines have to be examined in detail both in
themselves and the effect that they would have on other doctrines (an
example would be the nature of Christ - if you change his nature to
being 'God the Son' rather than the 'Son of God' it has a profound
knock-on effect on how he accomplished salvation and the nature of man
itself).

Saying "read the Bible in an extremely narrow and specific manner" is
as silly as saying "a physicist looks at their field in an extremely
narrow and specific manner". Which of course they do. As does any
specialist.

Phil

 

A source of much debate

Traditionalists: baptised women wear headcovering while in church, men
don't.

Progressives: Baptised women wear headcoverings while they lead in
prayer or discussion. Men don't.

Ultra progressives: The phrase used applies only to married women - all
others are not covered.

Phil

 

Of course.

 

Democracy can't exist without people voting.

Obviously *some* people can not vote, and the system will still work.
There comes a point where the mandate is too small for the election to
have validity. If that happened here (I dunno, say a turnout of <
30%), I think "bad things" could happen. Which is why I maintain that
people who don't vote are freeloading off the rest of us who do.

 

And I can do likewise - and perform them in my daily life.

I think this is where our disconnect is - you were bought up to firmly
believe that Christianity must be expressed in politics and I was
bought up to firmly believe that politics and Christianity should not
mix.

We both (I hope) agree that religion *has* to be expressed in our
relationship with others and how we act towards them.

Phil.

 

Which is why you cross-compare it with other passages and the effect
that it has on other beliefs.

Theology is an interconnected web - changes in one part almost always
have an effect on other parts.

I have - many many times.

The actual passage (from the NIV):

13 Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted
among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, 14 or to
governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to
commend those who do right. 15 For it is God's will that by doing good
you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men. 16 Live as free
men, but do not use your freedom as a coverup for evil; live as
servants of God. 17 Show proper respect to everyone: Love the
brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king.

I don't see where in there you get your idea from but it isn't from
there!

Looking earlier in the chapter:

11 Dear friends, I urge you, as aliens and strangers in the world, to
abstain from sinful desires, which war against your soul. 12 Live such
good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing
wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he
visits us.

Nope - no politics in there either. But what it does say is that we
show our faith by the way we live - and that in doing so we glorify
God.

Acts 5:

27 Having brought the apostles, they made them appear before the
Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. 28. We gave you strict
orders not to teach in this name,. he said. .Yet you have filled
Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of
this man's blood..

29 Peter and the other apostles replied: .We must obey God rather
than men!

Do you want it any more plain than that? The ruling authorities (the
Jewish Sanhedrin) had commanded Peter and the others not to preach
about Jesus. They disobeyed and preached. And their reasons for doing
so? "We must obey God rather than men".

Phil