Spiritual fruit verses politics

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

You are right in that legislators should work together for the common good.
We can help in this regard by voting for public servants who are there to represent their constituents and get things done.
Usually compromise is necessary.
God wants us to do good and be good citizens. If politics is a den of hatred, you can change that. You find the troublemakers and vote them out the same way you'd cultivate a garden.

Common ground among the establishment is a bad Idea. Especially in the context of America where both establishments only seek to maintain their wealth and the American Empire.

 

[HopeSings]

I don't think so.


Now, so we are the sinners because we participate in this forum, and yet you are here debating your point of view? Do you realize how many Christian brothers and sisters work in government and yet you have the gall to call them ungodly and bad mouth their profession? Paul and the apostles don't look like Jesus because everyone is a sinner saved or not.

I agree with you that Christians shouldn't argue which leads to contention whether it be politics, the bible, pointing out other sins, or what you are doing with your threads. Peace Out

I don't think so.


Now, so we are the sinners because we participate in this forum, and yet you are here debating your point of view? Do you realize how many Christian brothers and sisters work in government and yet you have the gall to call them ungodly and bad mouth their profession? Paul and the apostles don't look like Jesus because everyone is a sinner saved or not.

I agree with you that Christians shouldn't argue which leads to contention whether it be politics, the bible, pointing out other sins, or what you are doing with your threads. Peace Out

I never said working in government was ungodly. I said division is ungodly.

 

[oikonomia]

Not sure what your point is.

The city on a hill analogy from the Lord and the golden lampstands vision show the testimonial nature of the church.
In many cities across the world there should be within them a smaller city showing the way to live. The seven chucrhes
were according to cities. One testimony of oneness per city. (Rev. 1:11)

That way to live is to live Christ, live through Christ, live unto Christ and allow Christ to live through us.
That communitiy of called out ones according to each city is to be a beacon of truth for society surrounding to see.

Some people will come to the light. They should come from all manner of work, positions, and careers. Certainly some from
government work also should come to the ekklesia.

This church age is not the age for us to coerce society to be reformed. But it is an age for the church to testify that there
are people under the administration of Christ the indwelling King. Be assured that the day will come when the indwelling King
will be manifested as the King over the nations, deciding justly for peoples all over the globe.

But we need to be trained in the kingdom life now to be co-heirs with Him and co-kings with Him in that time.
Out of quantity He will obtain quality. That is those overcomers who have passed through the transformation of
grace in the church age.

But certainly we should touch the consciences of people in all walks of life including government work to turn
their whole lives over to Christ and the church.

Are you, like HopeSings, suggesting we stay out of politics?

Without re-reading I would not assume too much. Let HopeSings speak for him/herself.

The proper local church is the pillar and base of the truth. The proper church life consists of the
house of the living God holding up the truth and supporting the truth of this universe - God can live in man.

But if I delay, I write that you may know how one ought to conduct himself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and base of the truth.(1 Tim. 3:15)

This is the city on a hill and the golden shining lampstand illuminating the darkness of society.
Men and women also from government must see this truth and come to it to be in "the house of God".

This is the indirect influence the truth bearing house of God, the ekklesia, must have on even some in government.
They too become salt of the earth - a preservative to arrest the decline of degradation of the fallen world.

But the kingdom age of Christ reigning over the nations is yet to come. Don't miss the enjoyment of it.

If so, I ask the same question I asked to him/her: How do you justify your position given that, if we do not advocate for Christian values in the laws of the land, somebody else's values will become the basis for our laws and how we run our society? Do you not see the problem?

The real Christian values is Christ Himself coming into a man and making His home in their heart.
The real Christian values is the living God dispensed into people to saturate and permeate them through sanctification of life.

The presence of the church as the pillar and base of the truth will lead some to imitate Christian values.
It will cause others to oppose. But to imitate Christian values by non-Christians will be like teaching a poodle to
walk like a man. Or to imitate Christ living in men will be like a chimpanzee dressed in a suit.

Now I will concede that some of this imitation may have a positive effect on laws.
But the purpose of the church is not to cause unbelievers to imitate God-men.
It is to grow God-men with Christ living in them. This is "organic" rather than jusrt ethical.

The latter may render some good laws. But the genuine good law is the law of the Spirit of life - the living Person
of Christ regulating men from within.

A Christian who has really given to activisim, I believe, will probably burn out sooner or latter.
I passed through a stage of like this in the 70s as a Christian college student.
Both in Civil Rights and Vietnam protest (from a Christian persepective). It does not take long
to discover other Christians will have thier own viewpoint as to what Jesus wants here or there.

I am not sure anyone deep into politics can ever free themselves entirely from the vested interest of "What does this
mean to me? This law, how will it effect me?" And through that cultural, racial, ethinc logics, regional, national philosophy, domestic philosophies will divide the church distracting men from living Christ.

We are about growing Christ in people to produce transformation the "one new man" throughout the earth.
There there cannot be social schisms and fault lines of cultures overruling the unity of the Body of Christ.

For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
There cannot be Jew nor Greek, there cannot be slave nor free man,
there cannot be male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Gal. 3:27,28 RcV)

That you put off, as regards your former manner of life, the old man, which is being corrupted according to the lusts of the deceit,
And that you be renewed in the spirit of your mind and put on the new man, which was created according to God in righteousness and holiness of the reality. (Eph. 4:24,25 RcV)

 

[expos4ever]

But the kingdom age of Christ reigning over the nations is yet to come. Don't miss the enjoyment of it.

Most Christians believe this, but I have come to believe this is not Biblical - scripture teaches is already enthroned. I believe you have not responded to post 33. In that post, I make a Biblical argument that Jesus already reigns over the nations. If my argument is invalid, you should be able to demonstrate where the mistake is. But, to be fair, you need to engage the actual texts and argument I have provided. I say this since since the following pattern sometimes appears in this forum:

- I will present a Bible text X and argue that it supports position P
- Someone will respond by presenting a Bible text Y that purports to undermine proposition P, and they will remain silent on text X.

The problem with this pattern of response is clear: While the argument presented about text Y , even if seemingly correct, does not address the argument based on text X.

And that is a big problem if we all buy into inerrancy because a fair and impartial third party would reason as follows:

- I have no reason to believe X does not support P since no one has challenged the initial argument based on X

- I also see how text Y undermines P

- Therefore, Scripture appears to contradict itself - both arguments appear valid, yet one supports P, the other refutes it.

Forgive me for this perhaps overly detailed explanation, but there are so many examples of people "evading" my arguments using this strategy that I believe this needs to be said. Having said this, I concede I have not addressed all your arguments. In order to salvage the position that Jesus is now King, I need to show how those texts are at least consistent with the notion that Jesus is already King.

In any event, there are many other scriptural arguments that the kingdom is already here and I will present these in forthcoming posts.

 

[expos4ever]

This church age is not the age for us to coerce society to be reformed.

First, I politely suggest that this is a prejudicial way to frame the issue. No one is saying we should coerce anyone - you are constructing a strawman. What the church should be doing is to participate as fully as possible, without "coercion" of course, in implementing the kingdom.

Second, it is really strange to imagine that the same Jesus who announces that the Kingdom, yes, has arrived, and is good news for the poor, to then want us to sit on the sidelines and not work to mold our society into one one where the poor are indeed relieved of their suffering.

Yes, we are to be a "light on the hill". And, yes, there are indeed senses in which we are to be "set apart". But to surrender the instrumentality of governance to what may well be "agents of darkness" while we sit around and wait is hardly the wise choice.

 

[oikonomia]

Most Christians believe this, but I have come to believe this is not Biblical - scripture teaches is already enthroned.

I never said Christ is not enthroned. I said the opposite when I said He is the indwelling King.
I need not go through loads of passages of being in the kingdom in the church age.

I believe you have not responded to post 33. In that post, I make a Biblical argument that Jesus already reigns over the nations.

I'll go back and look. But the kingdom Jesus taught, is a progressive developing, maturing and growing matter. It has stages.

And He said, So is the kingdom of God: as if a man cast seed on the earth,
And sleeps and rises night and day, and the seed sprouts and lengthens — how, he does not know.
The earth bears fruit by itself: first a blade, then an ear, then full grain in the ear.
But when the fruit is ripe, immediately he sends forth the sickle, because the harvest has come. (Mark 4:26-29)

The seed is one stage, the sprout lenthening is another stage, the blade with the ear is another stage, the ripened fruit
is a culmination stage. This is progression.

So to say the kingdom of God is here and is coming is biblical.

If my argument is invalid, you should be able to demonstrate where the mistake is. But, to be fair, you need to engage the actual texts and argument I have provided. I say this since since the following pattern sometimes appears in this forum:

I think you were eager to counter so grabbed the first sentence that allowed you oppostunity to do so.
I let your post be considered for over 24 hours. I thought how best to respond. Now if you read THROUGH my last post
I think you should see where I concurred with some of your concepts. And you may see where I balanced it with something.

I can't make you. But I would suggest you read through it again all the way. I said the existence of the proper church life
should have an indirect effect on people in all professions who touch her. That includes government officials whose consciences
may be touched.

I think that does not completely contradict your desire that Christians have influence over the government.
But if not, I stand by what I wrote so far.

I am here to obtain the truth not to win arguments just for its own sake. What good is that?

- I will present a Bible text X and argue that it supports position P
- Someone will respond by presenting a Bible text Y that purports to undermine proposition P, and they will remain silent on text X.

The problem with this pattern of response is clear: While the argument presented about text Y , even if seemingly correct, does not address the argument based on text X.

And that is a big problem if we all buy into inerrancy because a fair and impartial third party would reason as follows:

- I have no reason to believe X does not support P since no one has challenged the initial argument based on X

- I also see how text Y undermines P

You'll have to be more specific exactly where you'd like to correct something I said.
Quote me and my usage of a passage and specifically show me where there is a problem.

- Therefore, Scripture appears to contradict itself - both arguments appear valid, yet one supports P, the other refutes it.

There are paradoxes and seeming contradictions in the Bible. It is not an IBM flowchart for computer programmers.
And to navigate through some of the paradoxes requires experience with God and fellowship among saints across times and eras.

A big example is the two natures of Christ - human and divine.
Another example is the three-oneness of God - the Trinity.
Another is foreknowledge and freewill.
Another is selection and responsibility.

Another is the church universal nature and the the church local nature.
These all are concepts like a bird with two wings. There are two sides (at least) to many major themes of the revelation of God.

A great book on this is "The Two-foldedness of Divine Revelation" by Robert Govette.

Forgive me for this perhaps overly detailed explanation, but there are so many examples of people "evading" my arguments using this strategy that I believe this needs to be said. Having said this, I concede I have not addressed all your arguments. In order to salvage the position that Jesus is now King, I need to show how those texts are at least consistent with the notion that Jesus is already King.

In any event, there are many other scriptural arguments that the kingdom is already here and I will present these in forthcoming posts.

Of course Jesus is the King. He is made the head over all things to the church.
He told Pilate that His kingdom was not of this world (John 18:36) - YET.

But hold on. Here the kingdoms of this world have become the kingdom of the Lord and of His Christ.

And the seventh angel trumpeted; and there were loud voices in heaven, saying, The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ, and He will reign forever and ever. (Rev. 11:15)


Today in the church age the opening of the door of the kingdom for men to come in is simultaneous with men
coming into the church.

And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.
I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of the heavens, and whatever you bind on the earth shall have been bound in the heavens, and whatever you loose on the earth shall have been loosed in the heavens. (Matt. 16:18,19)

So to say the kingdom of God is now and the kingdom of God is coming is biblical.

And to preach the gospel of the grace of God in this age is to proclaim the kingdom of God.

. . . in order that I may finish my course and the ministry which I have received from the Lord Jesus to solemnly testify of the gospel of the grace of God. And now, behold, I know that you all, among whom I have gone about proclaiming the kingdom, . . . (See Acts 20:24-25)

So again to teach the kingdom is here and the kingdom is coming is biblical.

Now those under the inward regularting of the grace of God seek to bring every part of our being
under His reigning. For in the age of grace His mighty resurrection power is within the churching people
to mature them and grow God's life in them preparing them for the next stage of the kingdom.

And what is the surpassing greatness of His power toward us who believe, according to the operation of the might of His strength,
Which He caused to operate in Christ in raising Him from the dead and seating Him at His right hand in the heavenlies,

Far above all rule and authority and power and lordship and every name that is named not only in this age but also in that which is to come; And He subjected all things under His feet and gave Him to be Head over all things to the church,

Which is His Body, the fullness of the One who fills all in all. (Ephesaians 1;19-23)

My attention is to the entering into Christ being the fullness in the church - filling all in all.
Out of quantity He will obtain a remnant of quality - overcoming ones.
They will be qualified and ready to co-reign with Him in the next age - when the kingdoms of this world become the
kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ.

So the hope that the kingdom is HERE and the kingdom is COMING is entirely according to the Bible's revelation.

 

[expos4ever]

I never said Christ is not enthroned. I said the opposite when I said He is the indwelling King.

What I posted was in response to this from you:

But the kingdom age of Christ reigning over the nations is yet to come.

I believe scripture is clear - and I believe post 33 is an example - Christ currently does reign over the nations. When you say it is "yet to come", do you mean that the kingship of Jesus is yet to be fully actaulized? If so, I would obviously agree - my position is that the Kingdom is indeed here now, but, of course, it has not been yet fully actualized. It is "under construction" if you will.

But the kingdom Jesus taught, is a progressive developing, maturing and growing matter. It has stages.

I agree.

So to say the kingdom of God is here and is coming is biblical.

I also agree with this and I should have been more nuanced in my explanation of what I mean by the Kingdom being "here now".

 

[expos4ever]

He told Pilate that His kingdom was not of this world (John 18:36) - YET.

But hold on. Here the kingdoms of this world have become the kingdom of the Lord and of His Christ.

And the seventh angel trumpeted; and there were loud voices in heaven, saying, The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ, and He will reign forever and ever. (Rev. 11:15)


Today in the church age the opening of the door of the kingdom for men to come in is simultaneous with men
coming into the church.

Not sure exactly what you are saying. It seems that you see some kind of distinction between John 18:36 and the text from Revelation.

I think the John text has been misunderstood.

36Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world.

The greek word that is rendered “of” above has the following definition:

“a primary preposition denoting origin (the point whence action or motion proceeds), from, out (of place, time, or cause; literal or figurative; direct or remote)”

If we take the Greek seriously, the real intent appears to be this: “my kingdom is not from this world” as, indeed, some translations do translate this saying.

So I no distinction between the John text and the Rev text - neither is saying that Jesus kingship is anything other than a real kingship. We agree on this, seemingly. So I am not sure what you are saying about John 18:36.

From the rest of your post, I get the impression, but you can correct me on this, that you think the "present stage" of Jesus's kingship is one where He is king over us only in an "internal sense". Here is an example:

For in the age of grace His mighty resurrection power is within the churching people
to mature them and grow God's life in them preparing them for the next stage of the kingdom.

Here is where I think we disagree - you appear to think the stage we are in now is one where we should not fully get embroiled in the political sphere. I see no Biblical warrant for not going "whole hog" on the Kingdom. Again, the "kingdom not of this world" text is, I suggest, wildly misleading due to translation issues - Jesus is in no way limiting the scope of His kingship to something other than the real world in all its dimensions.

 

[oikonomia]

What I posted was in response to this from you:

But the kingdom age of Christ reigning over the nations is yet to come.

But if He is King over the nations in that final sense now then why are you working to correct govenment ?
If all the world is not in submission to Him, though He is King His kingdom has yet to be fully manifested.

First Corinthians shows just what I wrote before. The kingdom is in stages.

For He must reign until God puts all His enemies under His feet. (1 Cor. 15:24)
The word "until" means though He is King He is still in the process of having universal submission to His reign.

And when all things have been subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to Him who has subjected all things to Him, that God may be all in all. (v. 28)

Do you see an ongoing yet ever encreasing bringing of all things under His kingship?

I believe scripture is clear - and I believe post 33 is an example - Christ currently does reign over the nations.

Then you need not be upset about the laws of nations not being according to Christ. Then your activism is a moot point.
If He is currently the King of the nations is every sense of the word as present ultimate situation there is no need for protest.
But you are obviously concerned with a glaring descrepancy of His ruling and a nation's submission.

This is not realistic viewpoint. "The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ, and He will reign forever and ever." (Rev. 11:15) is announced at the seventh trumpet, the last trumpet at the end of the great tribulation.

Psalm 2 shows the anger of the nations not submissive yet to the reigning kingship of the Son of God.
His iniversal vindiction as King of kings is manifested through a lenghty period of futile opposition.

Why are the nations in an uproar, and why do the peoples contemplate a vain thing?

The kings of the earth take their stand, and the rulers sit in counsel together,
against Jehovah and against His Anointed:
Let us break apart Their bonds and cast Their ropes away from us.

He who sits in the heavens laughs; the Lord has them in derision.
Then He will speak to them in His anger, And in His burning wrath He will terrify them:
But I have installed My King upon Zion, My holy mountain. (Psalm 2:2-6)

He is King and He WILL be King too.

When you say it is "yet to come", do you mean that the kingship of Jesus is yet to be fully actaulized?

Yes. The full manifestation of the kingdom of Christ must have co-kings who have been prepared through training to reign with Him.
We are currently in that period of the age of grace in which a remnant of those saved are readied to co-reign with Him.

Faithful is the word: For if we died with Him, we will also live with Him;
If we endure, we will also reign with Him; if we deny Him, He also will deny us; (2 Tim. 2:11,12)

Did you see that future tense? - "we will also reign with Him."
He will not unilaterally be King over the nations alone. To His glory He must prepare co-kings.

These so rewarded saints have wisely used previous ages to let God wrought them into
submissive sons of God. And a reward in addition to eternal redemption is to reign with Him in the
coming millennial kingdom.

You should notice the conditional requirement (IF) for such co-reigning.
If we endure, we will also reign with Him;

If so, I would obviously agree - my position is that the Kingdom is indeed here now, but, of course, it has not been yet fully actualized. It is "under construction" if you will.

I agree.

I also agree with this and I should have been more nuanced in my explanation of what I mean by the Kingdom being "here now".

I see.

 

[oikonomia]

Not sure exactly what you are saying. It seems that you see some kind of distinction between John 18:36 and the text from Revelation.

In John 18 He explains what His servants will not fight. His kingdom "kingdom of the heavens" has its source and origin from heaven.
The day will come when the kingdoms of the world become His kingdom. In that time His servants will fight

Now our battle is not against flesh and blood. It is against spiritual forces of evil in the heavenlies.

I think the John text has been misunderstood.

36Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world.

The greek word that is rendered “of” above has the following definition:

“a primary preposition denoting origin (the point whence action or motion proceeds), from, out (of place, time, or cause; literal or figurative; direct or remote)”

If we take the Greek seriously, the real intent appears to be this: “my kingdom is not from this world” as, indeed, some translations do translate this saying.

I agree with the matter of the source and origin of His kingdom. This is why we pray "Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven."

The church age is to bring in this kingdom through taking the lead for Christ to head up all things in our being inwardly.
The church spear-heads and ushers in the millennial kingdom age.

We are those who FIRST hoped in His reign.

In whom also we were designated as an inheritance, having been predestinated according to the purpose of the One who works all things according to the counsel of His will, that we would be to the praise of His glory who have first hoped in Christ, (Eph. 1:11,12)

So I no distinction between the John text and the Rev text - neither is saying that Jesus kingship is anything other than a real kingship. We agree on this, seemingly. So I am not sure what you are saying about John 18:36.

Real begins with the inward reigning which is at home, in society, at the job, the reality of being under His inward regulation of grace.
The reward for living in the reality of His kingdom is the eventual participation in the manifestation outwardly in glory of that kingdom.

We are today to "reign in life" over the fallen self, the natural man of sin, and be more than conquerors.
The reward for enjoying reigning is life in reality will be the manifestation outwardly of that kingdom of glory.

For if, by the offense of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. (Rom. 5:17)

You know that when the matured sons of God are manifested nature itself will be freed from corruption and futility.
That manifestation includes the transfiguration of our bodies to conform to His glorious resurrection body He has now.

For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the coming glory to be revealed upon us.
For the anxious watching of the creation eagerly awaits the revelation of the sons of God.
For the creation was made subject to vanity, not of its own will, but because of Him who subjected it,

In hope that the creation itself will also be freed from the slavery of corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God.
For we know that the whole creation groans together and travails in pain together until now.
And not only so, but we ourselves also, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan in ourselves, eagerly awaiting sonship, the redemption of our body. (Rom. 8:18-23)

From the rest of your post, I get the impression, but you can correct me on this, that you think the "present stage" of Jesus's kingship is one where He is king over us only in an "internal sense". Here is an example:

Here is where I think we disagree - you appear to think the stage we are in now is one where we should not fully get embroiled in the political sphere. I see no Biblical warrant for not going "whole hog" on the Kingdom. Again, the "kingdom not of this world" text is, I suggest, wildly misleading due to translation issues - Jesus is in no way limiting the scope of His kingship to something other than the real world in all its dimensions.

While we should give oursleves to Christ growing and spreading into all of our being there are those
who are "without" or "outside" of this reality as opposed to those who are "within."
We may have to remove one from within who refuses to repent as one who lives like he is without. That is to quarintine them as if
their germs are contagious to damage the assembly.

For what have I to do with judging those who are outside the church? Do you not judge those who are within the church?
But those who are outside, God will judge. Remove the evil man from among yourselves. (1 Cor. 5:12,13)

In this passage we see that future wise the believers should expect to judge men and angels (bad ones).
But during the church age these to be administered over are without this sphere. The are called the unrighteous, the unbelievers.
We cannot force them in. We can only be an inviting testimony (to men) for them to enter in voluntarily - as we did by God's mercy.

Does any one of you who has a case against another dare to be judged before the unrighteous and not before the saints?
Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is judged by you, are you unworthy of the smallest judgments?

Do you not know that we will judge angels, not to mention things of this life?
If then you hold judgments over things of this life, do you seat as judges those who are of no account in the church?

I say this to your shame. So there is no one wise among you, who will be able to discern between his brothers? (1 Cor.6:1-5)

 

[HopeSings]

I cant fellowship with this contention. That's my point. I testify

 

[expos4ever]

But if He is King over the nations in that final sense now then why are you working to correct govenment ?
If all the world is not in submission to Him, though He is King His kingdom has yet to be fully manifested.

I believe I clarified my position - His kingdom is not fully manifested now. On this we agree.

Do you see an ongoing yet ever increasing bringing of all things under His kingship?

Yes, I do, although I can see why this is an arguable point.

Then you need not be upset about the laws of nations not being according to Christ. Then your activism is a moot point.
If He is currently the King of the nations is every sense of the word as present ultimate situation there is no need for protest.

Again, I have clarified my position - the kingdom is not yet fully manifested. And because the kingdom is still "under construction", we need to work to bring it to full expression.

 

[oikonomia]

I believe I clarified my position - His kingdom is not fully manifested now. On this we agree.

Yes, I do, although I can see why this is an arguable point.

Again, I have clarified my position - the kingdom is not yet fully manifested. And because the kingdom is still "under construction", we need to work to bring it to full expression.

Yes. I noticed. I think I current with your viewpoint.

Now back to the activism matter. I think as much as it is possible with us as believers, we try to live in peace with all men.
This exortation leaves room for the capacity and spiritual growth of the Christian to have endurance may be exceeded.

If I find that a govenment is intolerable and I cannot be at peace with its law makers, if there is opportunity
I would leave that place.

If possible, as far as it depends on you, live in peace with all men. (Rom. 12:18)

The only country I have ever lived in is the United States. But if a Christian brother told me
the situation has become so unbearable under the government, I would not hold it at all
against him to want live elsewhere.

There are refugees. There are escaped slaves. There are those who do not have the capacity of grace
to live under a certain regime. As far as it depends on you the NT says.

 

[expos4ever]

I cant fellowship with this contention. That's my point. I testify

I politely suggest that you have been consistently evading clear and appropriate questions. Any contention, I suggest, derives from your refusal to clearly address well posed challenges to your position. Of course, no one here is under obligation to respond to other posters. But it certainly seems to me that any "contention" is a result of your evasive posting.

 

[HopeSings]

I politely suggest that you have been consistently evading clear and appropriate questions. Any contention, I suggest, derives from your refusal to clearly address well posed challenges to your position. Of course, no one here is under obligation to respond to other posters. But it certainly seems to me that any "contention" is a result of your evasive posting.

I evade unwise debate yes.

 

[expos4ever]

I evade unwise debate yes.

Ok, fine. But I suggest you are not really engaging in responsible discussion - you are trying to convince others of the correctness of your position but you artfully evade appropriate challenges. That is your right, of course, but surely you must understand that all readers will see that you are not willing to engage meaningful challenges to your position. And such silence speaks volumes - when you evade challenging questions, this is tantamount to conceding that your position is exceedingly vulnerable and shaky.

 

[HopeSings]

Ok, fine. But I suggest you are not really engaging in responsible discussion - you are trying to convince others of the correctness of your position but you artfully evade appropriate challenges. That is your right, of course, but surely you must understand that all readers will see that you are not willing to engage meaningful challenges to your position. And such silence speaks volumes - when you evade challenging questions, this is tantamount to conceding that your position is exceedingly vulnerable and shaky.

I speak truth. It's not my responsibility if people here it or not.

 

[expos4ever]

I speak truth. It's not my responsibility if people here it or not.

But truth should not need to hide. If what you are saying - that Christians should stay out of political activity - is actually true (as you claim it is), then you should be able to explain to the readers how it makes sense for Christians to remain silent and inactive in that domain of human activity (the political one) that plays such a vital role in determining "what our world is like".

You should be able to explain why we Christians should not be politically active in restricting abortion (which, at some stages in a pregnancy at least, certainly seems to constitute murder).

You should be able to explain why we Christians, who presumably see the earth as part of God's good creation, should not be politically active to enact responsible environmental legislation.

You should be able to explain why we Christians, who presumably believe that "in Christ, there is neither Jew nor Greek", should not be politically active in ensuring that the laws of the land offer protection from discrimination.

 

[HopeSings]

But truth should not need to hide. If what you are saying - that Christians should stay out of political activity - is actually true (as you claim it is), then you should be able to explain to the readers how it makes sense for Christians to remain silent and inactive in that domain of human activity (the political one) that plays such a vital role in determining "what our world is like".

You should be able to explain why we Christians should not be politically active in restricting abortion (which, at some stages in a pregnancy at least, certainly seems to constitute murder).

You should be able to explain why we Christians, who presumably see the earth as part of God's good creation, should not be politically active to enact responsible environmental legislation.

You should be able to explain why we Christians, who presumably believe that "in Christ, there is neither Jew nor Greek", should not be politically active in ensuring that the laws of the land offer protection from discrimination.

Truth isn't hiding