People claim to want Jesus for president, but would they really?

[Adam56]

I think it's interesting that you chose to highlight that group when I mentioned a lot of groups.

Allow me to provide a fairly broad level question as a response: Am I loving my neighbor if I am actively seeking to deprive them of certain rights which are otherwise available to others? If something is a right, and I actively target some of my neighbors in such a way as to deprive them of that right, is this in keeping with Jesus commandment to love my neighbor?

To put it more succinctly: Should certain people have rights and other persons be deprived of those same rights?

-CryptoLutheran

Technically homosexuals always did have a right to get married, to someone of the opposite sex. They wanted a redefinition of marriage.

Heck, I’d reckon a large amount of them didn’t even care and it was the powers that be that pushed for same sex marriage.

 

[DavidTheGnome]

It seems that some people would rather have the antichrist for president than the Christ.

 

[Aaron112]

Jesus accepts all.

And is the perfect righteous judge of all.
Few escape judgment resulting in going to the lake of fire.
As President, would He refrain from Perfect Judgment ?

 

[Aaron112]

It seems that some people would rather have the antichrist for president than the Christ.

That is what all the people of the world have had for thousands of years. (symbolically)

They don't want to obey, they want to sin, and are glad someone tells them go ahead and sin, pay us some money, and we will absolve you. Go and sin more. And bring us more money.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I think it's interesting that you chose to highlight that group when I mentioned a lot of groups.

Allow me to provide a fairly broad level question as a response: Am I loving my neighbor if I am actively seeking to deprive them of certain rights which are otherwise available to others? If something is a right, and I actively target some of my neighbors in such a way as to deprive them of that right, is this in keeping with Jesus commandment to love my neighbor?

To put it more succinctly: Should certain people have rights and other persons be deprived of those same rights?

-CryptoLutheran

This assumes that rights, in the liberal sense of rights, are something that our Lord would respect or agree with.

Was Jesus an 18th to 21st century liberal who judges via that standard? Or is he the Lord and King of all to whom everyone is ultimately subject?

Do we for instance have the right to blaspheme God or desecrate a building sanctified to him according to our Lord? Probably not, since love of God goes before any freedom to blaspheme him.

When it comes to homosexuality, why would our Lord legitimize that which is sin?

 

[Dan1988]

Jesus would get rid of gay marriage.

So there's that.

No abortions EVER. Jesus knows it is bogus to claim that a pregnant woman will die unless she murders her child. Well, there was that Gianna Molla story but that is rare. Even so, murder is murder.

Jesus would tell the illegals to immigrate LEGALLY because he recognized that we need LAWS. I mean that's kind of a no brainer thing: society needs to have law and order

And I could go on and on. But in any case, we can't have Jesus so Trump is the next best or virtually the next best thing. .. just saying

Jesus said, "My Kingdom is not of this world", He also said that Satan is the prince of this world. Jesus also said He is coming back as a Man of war, with His Army of Angels to destroy His enemies and take the world back from Satan.
I the meantime, we can't expect Satan to allow a Godly man to be the US president. JFK was a Godly man and look what the powers of darkness did to him.

Trump is the best of the worst, available. If he becomes president again, he will have to serve his Master by selling the mandate he is given, to Joe public. A president is supposed to represent everyone, including all the minority groups and it's simply impossible to grant every group their wishes as there are so many opposing sectors of society demanding to be heard.

We can't expect any president to mix religion and politics, religious views are a private matter. There's an estimated 3,200 different religions in the US. Many of those hold to radically different ideologies and values, so it's impossible to represent all of them. Democracy is supposed to function by "Mob Rule", or "Majority Rule" where laws are written to reflect the views of the majority.

Democracy is a never ending battle to keep pace with the demands of the majority, who are never satisfied so it's a self defeating system of government.

 

[expos4ever]

Jesus would tell the illegals to immigrate LEGALLY because he recognized that we need LAWS. I mean that's kind of a no brainer thing: society needs to have law and order

Let scripture speak:

At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath, and His disciples became hungry and began to pick the heads of grain and eat. 2 Now when the Pharisees saw this, they said to Him, “Look, Your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on a Sabbath!” 3 But He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he became hungry, he and his companions— 4 how he entered the house of God, and they ate the [b]consecrated bread, which was not lawful for him to eat nor for those with him, but for the priests alone? 5 Or have you not read in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple [c]violate the Sabbath, and yet are innocent? 6 But I say to you that something greater than the temple is here.

Jesus approved of breaking the law in at least this circumstance. And there are other examples of Jesus breaking the Law (I know that is a controversial claim but I suggest it is scripturally defensible). Am I saying that Jesus does not think laws are important? No, I am not saying this. What I am suggesting is that Jesus sees that higher principles are sometimes at work that trump the law.

 

[rturner76]

Do we for instance have the right to blaspheme God or desecrate a building sanctified to him according to our Lord? Probably not

I'm pretty sure vandalism and hate crimes are illegal in the society we live in now

When it comes to homosexuality, why would our Lord legitimize that which is sin?

I don't think he would personally participate in it but it's my understanding that God created man and bestowed on him freedom of choice. My feeling is that the Christ for World Leader campaign would focus more acutely on crimes that actually have a victim.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I'm pretty sure vandalism and hate crimes are illegal in the society we live in now

It's not illegal to blaspheme against our God in most Western countries. Would what Jesus did in the Temple be classified as Vandalism under today's western assumptions?

I don't think he would personally participate in it but it's my understanding that God created man and bestowed on him freedom of choice. My feeling is that the Christ for World Leader campaign would focus more acutely on crimes that actually have a victim.

So if Christ were King he would maximize individual freedom?

 

[Aaron112]

So if Christ were King he would maximize individual freedom?

In Israel did God allow individual freedom to serve idols, to worship demons, to ever allow perversion ?
No.

 

[ViaCrucis]

This assumes that rights, in the liberal sense of rights, are something that our Lord would respect or agree with.

Was Jesus an 18th to 21st century liberal who judges via that standard? Or is he the Lord and King of all to whom everyone is ultimately subject?

Do we for instance have the right to blaspheme God or desecrate a building sanctified to him according to our Lord? Probably not, since love of God goes before any freedom to blaspheme him.

When it comes to homosexuality, why would our Lord legitimize that which is sin?

I don't believe any human institution of governance to be Christian. Christians exist in and under human institutions. I've no interest in the creation of a Christian State, because I don't believe such a thing is real nor possible; certainly not on this side of the Eschaton.

And thus the Christian is only capable of working within the limited means of human institutions.

A Christian Dictatorship would not be Christian, because even if the dictator were to, nominally, institute a "Christian" government it would exist contrary to the rule of Christ.

I believe, therefore, that the Separation of Church and State is a situation that maximally enables human freedom; that freedom enables the freedom of belief; wherein I as a Christian am permitted to be free in my Christian life without the impositions of an authoritarian state imposing itself against my religious and spiritual autonomy. The by-product is that this also means that others are entirely free to not believe, and to live in a state of disbelief, and that means even that which we may regard as sinful is permitted, not because it is in harmony with the way of Christ, but because in a society that maximizes human freedom there is freedom to both pursue righteousness and to pursue unrighteousness. And thus it becomes the purview of the Church, not the State, to reach the lost, to come bearing the Gospel, and be the City on a Hill. It is the Church, not the State, which is the Kingdom of God on earth.

Is it my Christian duty, in my vocation as neighbor-citizen, to compel the State to due as my religious convictions dictate; or is it my Christian duty, in my vocation as neighbor-citizen, to compel the State to enable a condition of human freedom in which I am free to believe, live, and preach as I am (a Christian) and seek to win my neighbor over with the truth of the Christian faith without the compulsion of the State?

If it is my Christian duty to uphold the State to be be a defender of human freedom, then that means recognizing that the rights which I enjoy are to be enjoyed by others. I am not a special class of citizen, I am not privileged as a Christian to have a higher social status, or a greater position under the law; I am not afforded special treatment. For the good that I wish for myself is also the good that I should wish for my neighbor. That freedom which I desire for myself is the freedom I desire for my neighbor.

If, however, you believe that the State should act as an instrument of the Church to strongarm men to be Christians, even against their conscience; then we are at a fundamental disagreement. I believe that is definitely contrary to the way of Christ; for Christ did not institute a government, but a Church. The Apostles did not write on the formulations of human government, but on practice of free-believers in the Lord Jesus even while under the tyrant-power of Pagan Rome.

The Church is a free association of brothers; not a compulsory body created by the tyranny of the State.

As such I believe that Democracy is a preferred state of affairs for temporal human society than Monarchy.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

In Israel did God allow individual freedom to serve idols, to worship demons, to ever allow perversion ?
No.

The Temple was destroyed in 70 AD. There hasn't been a divinely-sanctioned theocratic form of government since ancient Israel; and there is nothing in the words and teachings of Christ and His Holy Apostles which would permit us to make our own "New Israel". The Church, not any temporal government, is Israel in Christ.

And there are commandments for the Church, none of which permit us to create a system of government to force our neighbors to become members of Christ's Holy and Mystical Body. We do not create a state in which we, under pain of law, force men to be baptized. Rather, the Church proclaims the word of God and declares the invitation of Christ: Repent and be baptized. Baptism is not forced by the state, but is the invitation of the Church.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

So if Christ were King he would maximize individual freedom?

Christ is King.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I don't believe any human institution of governance to be Christian. Christians exist in and under human institutions. I've no interest in the creation of a Christian State, because I don't believe such a thing is real nor possible; certainly not on this side of the Eschaton.

And thus the Christian is only capable of working within the limited means of human institutions.

A Christian Dictatorship would not be Christian, because even if the dictator were to, nominally, institute a "Christian" government it would exist contrary to the rule of Christ.

I believe, therefore, that the Separation of Church and State is a situation that maximally enables human freedom; that freedom enables the freedom of belief; wherein I as a Christian am permitted to be free in my Christian life without the impositions of an authoritarian state imposing itself against my religious and spiritual autonomy. The by-product is that this also means that others are entirely free to not believe, and to live in a state of disbelief, and that means even that which we may regard as sinful is permitted, not because it is in harmony with the way of Christ, but because in a society that maximizes human freedom there is freedom to both pursue righteousness and to pursue unrighteousness. And thus it becomes the purview of the Church, not the State, to reach the lost, to come bearing the Gospel, and be the City on a Hill. It is the Church, not the State, which is the Kingdom of God on earth.

Is it my Christian duty, in my vocation as neighbor-citizen, to compel the State to due as my religious convictions dictate; or is it my Christian duty, in my vocation as neighbor-citizen, to compel the State to enable a condition of human freedom in which I am free to believe, live, and preach as I am (a Christian) and seek to win my neighbor over with the truth of the Christian faith without the compulsion of the State?

If it is my Christian duty to uphold the State to be be a defender of human freedom, then that means recognizing that the rights which I enjoy are to be enjoyed by others. I am not a special class of citizen, I am not privileged as a Christian to have a higher social status, or a greater position under the law; I am not afforded special treatment. For the good that I wish for myself is also the good that I should wish for my neighbor. That freedom which I desire for myself is the freedom I desire for my neighbor.

If, however, you believe that the State should act as an instrument of the Church to strongarm men to be Christians, even against their conscience; then we are at a fundamental disagreement. I believe that is definitely contrary to the way of Christ; for Christ did not institute a government, but a Church. The Apostles did not write on the formulations of human government, but on practice of free-believers in the Lord Jesus even while under the tyrant-power of Pagan Rome.

The Church is a free association of brothers; not a compulsory body created by the tyranny of the State.

As such I believe that Democracy is a preferred state of affairs for temporal human society than Monarchy.

-CryptoLutheran

So to get this straight, Christianity must be forever separated from power and its institutions? Christians may rule but only on non Christian ideologies like Liberal democracy?

Can Christians, if they so desire it, have another kind of political order that is not liberal, not democratic and not secular in your eyes? Or should such an entity be anathema?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Christ is King.

-CryptoLutheran

Yeah but do you believe that? In the final analysis the teachings of Christ are subject to the ideology of liberalism in your view. This would imply there is a greater principle and standard than Jesus himself.

 

[Aaron112]

Ephesians 5:16-18. King James Version. 16 Redeeming the time, because the days are evil.

Ephesians 2:12

King James Version​

12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

 

[expos4ever]

Yeah but do you believe that? In the final analysis the teachings of Christ are subject to the ideology of liberalism in your view. This would imply there is a greater principle and standard than Jesus himself.

I do not think this is a fair criticism - you are setting up a false "either-or". I do not believe @ViaCrucis is in any way opposed to efforts to enshrine Jesus's principles into the law of the land - he (or she) just thinks that, given the way the world actually is right now, the best means to do this is via what you would call "liberalism" - a secular state where people have freedom to embrace whatever "religious" worldview they want. And advocate for the enshrinement in law of the values they believe in through an open democracy that provides the individual with plenty of freedom.

He (or she) rightly realizes that trying to create a theocracy would almost certainly be a complete disaster. In putting things this way, I am perhaps not representing your position fairly - set me straight if that is the case. I happen to not share, it seems, @ViaCrucis exact worldview - I think that Jesus is indeed a presently enthroned political leader of the whole world and, I think, he (she) thinks that Jesus is "only" head of the Church. But, in practical terms that distinction, althoughly conceptually important, may be more or less academic as I think it is beyond obvious that an open "liberal", and secular democracy is the only reasonable option absent Jesus' actual ruling presence.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I do not think this is a fair criticism - you are setting up a false "either-or". I do not believe @ViaCrucis is in any way opposed to efforts to enshrine Jesus's principles into the law of the land - he (or she) just thinks that, given the way the world actually is right now, the best means to do this is via what you would call "liberalism" - a secular state where people have freedom to embrace whatever "religious" worldview they want. And advocate for the enshrinement in law of the values they believe in through an open democracy that provides the individual with plenty of freedom.

He (or she) rightly realizes that trying to create a theocracy would almost certainly be a complete disaster. In putting things this way, I am perhaps not representing your position fairly - set me straight if that is the case. I happen to not share, it seems, @ViaCrucis exact worldview - I think that Jesus is indeed a presently enthroned political leader of the whole world and, I think, he (she) thinks that Jesus is "only" head of the Church. But, in practical terms that distinction, althoughly conceptually important, may be more or less academic as I think it is beyond obvious that an open "liberal", and secular democracy is the only reasonable option absent Jesus' actual ruling presence.

How can you enshrine any Christian principle into law in the secular worldview without it being accused of being theocratic? Viacrucis would presumably be against returning to a normal Christian view of marriage in law as this goes against the interests of homosexuals.

But it's not obvious to me that a liberal society is better than the older Christian models of society. Perhaps it is better for non Christians and their interests, but not Christians as we've seen a marked decline of Christianity since the adoption if liberal democracy.

 

[discombobulated1]

Jesus said, "My Kingdom is not of this world", He also said that Satan is the prince of this world. Jesus also said He is coming back as a Man of war, with His Army of Angels to destroy His enemies and take the world back from Satan.
I the meantime, we can't expect Satan to allow a Godly man to be the US president. JFK was a Godly man and look what the powers of darkness did to him.

WHAT???!!

I can't believe you say this.. He slept with anything that had a skirt!

 

[discombobulated1]

How can you enshrine any Christian principle into law in the secular worldview without it being accused of being theocratic? Viacrucis would presumably be against returning to a normal Christian view of marriage in law as this goes against the interests of homosexuals.

But it's not obvious to me that a liberal society is better than the older Christian models of society. Perhaps it is better for non Christians and their interests, but not Christians as we've seen a marked decline of Christianity since the adoption if liberal democracy.

Well said.

Yes, we Christians are often in a form of Hell because of all the nasty stuff we are exposed to, whether on TV or just anywhere these days..

I mean, it's downright depressing to see drag queens doing weird suggestive moves in front of innocent children. The parents of those children are either liberals or conservatives who don't even know what their children go through at school... BAD