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

[rturner76]

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?

So if Christ were King he would maximize individual freedom?

Tight, it's not illegal to blaspheme because we have freedom of speech.

I thought you already knew that Christ is not of this world.

1 Peter 2:15-17

15 For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish people.
16 Live as free people, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as God’s slaves.
17 Show proper respect to everyone, love the family of believers, fear God, honor the emperor.

We don't fo our good deeds or follow the authorities for the Emperor, we follow God's law. Non-Christians are not bound to God's law, just the law of the land. Should we blasphe,e? Of course not but if you don't believe there is a God your conscience is clear when you blaspheme and like to also say above to "live as free people." He leaves it up to the individual and their conscience. In a free society, we are forced to follow the law of the land but we answer to a higher power so not everything we are allowed to do is right with God.

Would the next step be to force conversion or make the heathen face death? That is what you end up when you let one religion rule the others in a free society.

 

[Semper-Fi]

I also recall the couple in Acts who were struck dead because they did not share their abundance with others...

As I recall they were struck down not because they did not give abundance,
but because [they lied about what they gave] or had not given.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Tight, it's not illegal to blaspheme because we have freedom of speech.

I thought you already knew that Christ is not of this world.

1 Peter 2:15-17

15 For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish people.
16 Live as free people, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as God’s slaves.
17 Show proper respect to everyone, love the family of believers, fear God, honor the emperor.

We are discussing the question of what sort of rule Jesus would himself implement. Freedom of speech is a modern policy and value, one not rooted in Christ or his words. Would Jesus tolerate blasphemy of the Holy Spirit in ant political order he is King of on earth? Difficult to imagine that Christ be as tolerant as modern rulers are of degeneracy and sin.

We don't fo our good deeds or follow the authorities for the Emperor, we follow God's law.

Well we do more than that as modern Christians. We follow the assumptions of non Christians and embrace their values. We even seek to uphold the current Godless order.

Non-Christians are not bound to God's law, just the law of the land. Should we blasphe,e?

In a Christian society the Non Christian would be bound to God's law not to blaspheme. In as much as Christians in the land of secular liberalism are bound to said laws or risk jail.

Of course not but if you don't believe there is a God your conscience is clear when you blaspheme and like to also say above to "live as free people." He leaves it up to the individual and their conscience. In a free society, we are forced to follow the law of the land but we answer to a higher power so not everything we are allowed to do is right with God.

Why is a free society something to be desided when it results in such decadance and the collapse of Christianity?

Would the next step be to force conversion or make the heathen face death? That is what you end up when you let one religion rule the others in a free society.

Um, no that's simply not true. Christians did not indiscriminately kill anyone who was different. They might not have treated Muslims, Jews or Atheists as equal but they didn't just murder them.

I'm curious, since you believe this, why do you think Christians were so evil?

 

[ViaCrucis]

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.

But as He Himself said, His kingdom is not of this world.

The Day will come when the fallen kingdoms of this present age will be reduced to nothing, and God will be all in all. But that's on the other side of the Parousia. On this side we live in a fallen world, and the Church's mission is not to take the reins of the worldly powers; but to be where the kingdom of God meets the broken and the downtrodden; where sinners are saved, and are called to lives of repentance and righteousness.

No political entity in history has ever been Christ's government. Not even when Constantinople had an emperor. I have no affection for the marriage of Church and Politics which occurred under Theodosius. This was, ultimately, a disaster for the Church; and the Church has ever suffered for it.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Aaron112]

No political entity in history has ever been Christ's government.

Without details, without debate or argument or even references here,
when Israel was serving YHVH, and before they asked for a king "to be like other nations",
they had the best "government" (upon His Shoulders - He Himself Rules them) ... ever.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I do.

But as He Himself said, His kingdom is not of this world.

The Day will come when the fallen kingdoms of this present age will be reduced to nothing, and God will be all in all. But that's on the other side of the Parousia. On this side we live in a fallen world, and the Church's mission is not to take the reins of the worldly powers; but to be where the kingdom of God meets the broken and the downtrodden; where sinners are saved, and are called to lives of repentance and righteousness.

Therefore we as Christians must surrender all power to non Christian ideologies and Christians who can only govern in the name of non Christian ideologies?

Are you a pacifist? Do you hate force on principle? BTW establishing a Christian society or political order is not the same as trying to inaugurate the Kingdom of God on Earth. Rather it says that Christians may weild power as much as anyone else can.

No political entity in history has ever been Christ's government. Not even when Constantinople had an emperor. I have no affection for the marriage of Church and Politics which occurred under Theodosius. This was, ultimately, a disaster for the Church; and the Church has ever suffered for it.

Was it a disaster for the Church? I wouldn't say it was perfect but it was better than the alternative. Or would you have preferred a world in which Christianity affected nothing? Where Paganism and Islam dominated Europe?

 

[Aaron112]

think Christians were so evil?

I think it is written in Scripture,
but for this forum it is not worth pursuing .

 

[Dan1988]

WHAT???!!

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

JFK was a Roman Catholic, as you know the Roman Catholics have accounted for all kinds of sinful activities by having confession. So Catholics can be absolved of their sins as long as they have regular confession before an ordained Priest.

I'm not trying to excuse his love of fornication, but maybe he was taught that it's not a deadly sin as long as you confess it. He probably figured that his urge was so strong that, the Priest would understand and grant him absolution after he completes his penance. I can sympathize with the man as I did the same thing and probably worse while I was a practicing Roman Catholic.

I left Roman Catholicism when I found out that the Holy Bible is not their highest authority. Their highest authority is the Pope, who they refer to as "Holy Father". The church I joined, would excommunicate me if I committed fornication or adultery. They don't tolerate, premeditated willful sin, in the Church.

I meant to say JFK based his worldview on biblical principals, so that made hm a Godly man or God fearing man. Todays Presidents, are openly Antichrist.

 

[expos4ever]

How can you enshrine any Christian principle into law in the secular worldview without it being accused of being theocratic?

Excellent point - I agree that I had not thought my reply out carefully enough. I hope to get back to you later. But, in summary, I think we are forced by "reality" to somewhat temper our otherwise all-out advocacy for Christian values in law.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Therefore we as Christians must surrender all power to non Christian ideologies and Christians who can only govern in the name of non Christian ideologies?

I believe in Christian vocationalism. In my vocation as citizen I am to live as a Christian citizen of wherever I live. As an employee at my job, I am to live as a Christian employee.

Let's take the second of these as something to look at: Does being a Christian employee mean that I try and make my co-workers pray the Our Father every morning? Of course not.

Neither is that how my vocation as citizen operates. As a citizen my vocational ministry isn't to force everyone around me to pray the Our Father, or to make them receive Baptism. My ministry as a citizen is to live as a Christian toward others within the context of my citizenship.

If I were in a position of political authority, would it be my vocation as a politician, a legislator, or civic officer to force my religion upon others?

Let's put it most simply: Do you believe that the role of the State, or the role of Christians whose vocation is as officers of the State, should be to mandate that non-believers be forced to convert?

Are you a pacifist?

I prefer advocate of non-violence; pacifist carries baggage of passivity. But, yes, I do believe that a rejection of violence is an ideal to be strived for as a matter of principle as a Christian. In keeping with the commandments of Christ-God, the Holy Apostles, and the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church which He founded.

Do you hate force on principle?

On principle? Yes.

Though I am lenient toward extraordinary circumstances which may require the use of force as a means of inhibiting greater evil. As might be the case should a madman break into my house and I must choose between the life of my family or this person's life. Or, on the larger scheme of world affairs, it may be necessary for a nation and its government to respond to extraordinary and existential threats to life with the violence of warfare--though I believe as a matter of principle violence is wicked, and war is evil. I recognize that violence can, in extraordinary circumstance, be justified; though I would never call such violence good.

BTW establishing a Christian society or political order is not the same as trying to inaugurate the Kingdom of God on Earth. Rather it says that Christians may weild power as much as anyone else can.

Christians may wield power to what ends?

What would the establishment of a Christian society or political order entail and look like? Do we have any examples, or is this entirely hypothetical? And in what ways has Christ, our God and Lord, suggested that His disciples undertake this project?

Was it a disaster for the Church? I wouldn't say it was perfect but it was better than the alternative. Or would you have preferred a world in which Christianity affected nothing? Where Paganism and Islam dominated Europe?

I suspect talk of Islam wouldn't make any sense in this hypothetical timeline. As far as Paganism goes, I've no idea. The only timeline we have any evidence of is the one recorded for us in the history books. I can imagine all manner of things, good and evil, ugly and worse. What a Europe look like in which Church and State never wed? Would it be a world in which Paganism would dominate forever? Maybe, maybe not. Christianity was already on the upward climb without the emperors involved; Tertulian once remarked that the blood of the martyrs which was fertile seed from which new converts to Christianity sprang. Can we imagine a world in which the mere power of the Gospel itself was enough to sway the masses away from Paganism? I'd like to think so, but all is speculation here.

What I will say is that if one thinks that Christianity affects nothing except by force and the persuasion of the State then one must think very little of Christ, His Gospel, or His Church.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[rturner76]

We are discussing the question of what sort of rule Jesus would himself implement.

That explains a lot. I was responding to the suggestion that we should basically make sin illegal.

Would Jesus tolerate blasphemy of the Holy Spirit in ant political order he is King of on earth?

Technically, he hasn't taken up governmental policy. More to the point, I have a difficult time finding exactly what laws to change or adopt.

Difficult to imagine that Christ be as tolerant as modern rulers are of degeneracy and sin.

I believe that the New Testament bears out that Jesus wants us to choose not to sin. If Christ were to run the government hypothetically, I believe that he would focus on making laws that can get justice for victims. I don't think he would

We follow the assumptions of non Christians and embrace their values.

That is because there are more voters for secular laws rather than making sure all sin is illegal and subject to Earthly punishment.

In a Christian society the Non Christian would be bound to God's law not to blaspheme. In as much as Christians in the land of secular liberalism are bound to said laws or risk jail.

Sorry, can you rephrase this question? I don't think I follow exactly what you are asking me. It looks like a 2 part question and I don't want to say the wrong think because I didn't have a clear understanding of the question.

Why is a free society something to be desided when it results in such decadance and the collapse of Christianity?

That is a good question. Not being educated in philosophy, I think being free is why most or all rebellions get sparked. If someone is not hurting someone, they don't want to go to jail so they will rebel. It creates even more of a problem when the people above us influence government policy and try to tell us, let alone make us think or believe.

Um, no that's simply not true. Christians did not indiscriminately kill anyone who was different. They might not have treated Muslims, Jews or Atheists as equal but they didn't just murder them.

Look up what happened to the Cathars or the Spanish Inquisition. Then there was Bloody Mary who was King Henry VIII. England had broken away from Rome and Puritanism, Calvinism, and Lutheranism were spreading like wildfire. So killed so many of her own subjects they nicknamed her "Bloody Mary." She indiscriminately killed literally thousands of Protestants. Granted the Protestants did the same thing when Elizabeth became Queen. I'll stop with the history lesson but I don't want there to be any mistake about The Church literally killing off heresy.

It was a different time and a violent time. I'm positive that their intentions were to make the world safe for practicing members of the Church but they killed many thousands of people to protect us. I'm sure Jesus wouldn't have different denominations killed off but what if there was a rebellion but those who don't believe that a crime has been committed when there is no victim? Would he smite them? All of them or just the Arme? But even the army gets their orders from somewhere. That comes from the politicians, and who elect the politicians. So it looks like he would have to genocide a whole group of people or let them live free if they haven't committed a crime.

I'm curious, since you believe this, why do you think Christians were so evil?

I don't think Christians are evil at all. It's just that some want to force conversion and some want people to choose to convert.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I believe in Christian vocationalism. In my vocation as citizen I am to live as a Christian citizen of wherever I live. As an employee at my job, I am to live as a Christian employee.

And that involves what exactly? Do you believe if you were a Christian subject of a monarchybit would be your duty to obey said monarchy or rebel against it?

Let's take the second of these as something to look at: Does being a Christian employee mean that I try and make my co-workers pray the Our Father every morning? Of course not.

Does it mean you surrender political authority and power to non Christians to determine society? Evidently it does according to you.

Neither is that how my vocation as citizen operates. As a citizen my vocational ministry isn't to force everyone around me to pray the Our Father, or to make them receive Baptism. My ministry as a citizen is to live as a Christian toward others within the context of my citizenship.

Is part of your vocation as a Christian to undermine Christian interests at large? Would you for instance have supported the Republicans during the Spanish Civil War?

If I were in a position of political authority, would it be my vocation as a politician, a legislator, or civic officer to force my religion upon others?

I guess it depends. Who do you represent? Do you represent Christians s and their interests or do you represent non Christians and their interests. If you were supported and brought into power by Christians it would be your duty to uphold their interests and act on them in a pragmatic fashion. If you were in power by a different mandate, it would be your duty to uphold the interests of other groups and undermine public Christianity in their interests.

Let's put it most simply: Do you believe that the role of the State, or the role of Christians whose vocation is as officers of the State, should be to mandate that non-believers be forced to convert?

No, but I believe the role of the state is to represent the interests of certain constituencies. Christians can thus advocate for their own interests against the interests of others. That's how power works.

I prefer advocate of non-violence; pacifist carries baggage of passivity. But, yes, I do believe that a rejection of violence is an ideal to be strived for as a matter of principle as a Christian. In keeping with the commandments of Christ-God, the Holy Apostles, and the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church which He founded.

Do you reject the legitimacy of all governments then since you are effectively a pacifist? The US as a nation is guilty of a lot of blood letting, or is that bloodletting justified?

On principle? Yes.

Though I am lenient toward extraordinary circumstances which may require the use of force as a means of inhibiting greater evil. As might be the case should a madman break into my house and I must choose between the life of my family or this person's life. Or, on the larger scheme of world affairs, it may be necessary for a nation and its government to respond to extraordinary and existential threats to life with the violence of warfare--though I believe as a matter of principle violence is wicked, and war is evil. I recognize that violence can, in extraordinary circumstance, be justified; though I would never call such violence good.

Oh so you do justify violence for things you favour. Is it justified for western governments to launch wars for liberal democracy?

Christians may wield power to what ends?

To the end that benefits them. Thats whay all people do with power.

What would the establishment of a Christian society or political order entail and look like? Do we have any examples, or is this entirely hypothetical? And in what ways has Christ, our God and Lord, suggested that His disciples undertake this project?

it may take many shapes but it would not look like the current society.

I suspect talk of Islam wouldn't make any sense in this hypothetical timeline. As far as Paganism goes, I've no idea. The only timeline we have any evidence of is the one recorded for us in the history books. I can imagine all manner of things, good and evil, ugly and worse. What a Europe look like in which Church and State never wed? Would it be a world in which Paganism would dominate forever? Maybe, maybe not. Christianity was already on the upward climb without the emperors involved; Tertulian once remarked that the blood of the martyrs which was fertile seed from which new converts to Christianity sprang. Can we imagine a world in which the mere power of the Gospel itself was enough to sway the masses away from Paganism? I'd like to think so, but all is speculation here.

I can also imagine a world where Roman Pagans acted like the Japanese and simply killed all Christians. What then? Would you still oppose Christians coming to power? Probably.

What I will say is that if one thinks that Christianity affects nothing except by force and the persuasion of the State then one must think very little of Christ, His Gospel, or His Church.

-CryptoLutheran

If you view power as the domain of false ideologies like liberalism instead of true religion like Christianity, you must think very little of Christianity.

 

[Valletta]

JFK was a Roman Catholic, as you know the Roman Catholics have accounted for all kinds of sinful activities by having confession. So Catholics can be absolved of their sins as long as they have regular confession before an ordained Priest.

I'm not trying to excuse his love of fornication, but maybe he was taught that it's not a deadly sin as long as you confess it. He probably figured that his urge was so strong that, the Priest would understand and grant him absolution after he completes his penance. I can sympathize with the man as I did the same thing and probably worse while I was a practicing Roman Catholic.

I left Roman Catholicism when I found out that the Holy Bible is not their highest authority. Their highest authority is the Pope, who they refer to as "Holy Father". The church I joined, would excommunicate me if I committed fornication or adultery. They don't tolerate, premeditated willful sin, in the Church.

I meant to say JFK based his worldview on biblical principals, so that made hm a Godly man or God fearing man. Todays Presidents, are openly Antichrist.

Someone has greatly misinformed you. First, Catholics believe God is the highest authority. We believe the Bible is the Word of God, the pope is certainly not a greater authority than the Word of God --who told you that? Jesus did give the Magisterium special authority, which is the pope acting in consultation with the bishops. On rare occasion they confirm dogma. In fact it was the Magisterium of the Catholic Church that decided upon the books of the Bible. And it was the Catholic Church that over the centuries preserved and translated Biblical text into common tongues and preached the Gospel throughout the world. No Catholic Church--no Bible. The process of the Catholic Church choosing the 73 books of the Bible spanned centuries. Saint Athanasius is credited with the first New Testament Biblical canon, his list is contained in his Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter of 367 A.D. This list was approved by Pope Damasus, and formally approved of by Councils at Hippo and Carthage in the late 300s. Pope Innocent I wrote a letter to the Bishop of Toulouse in 405 A.D. containing the list. It is Jesus who forgives us of our sins, the sacrament Jesus gave us through the Catholic Church is one wonderful avenue where we can be assured we are forgiven. While your particular religion may excommunicate you for certain grave sins know the great mercy of Jesus--Jesus will forgive you, even of grave grave sins, if you have perfect contrition. If you study the Bible you will learn that Jesus sat down and ate with sinners, even sinners who had committed grave sins. The authority Jesus gave to His Apostles and those who are successors, to forgive sin in His name, requires a person to be sorry for his or her sins and to try to avoid sin in the future. Intending to sin again, as if confession were a "get of jail" card so you could go out and sin again, is against what Jesus and His Catholic Church teach.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Excellent point - I agree that I had not thought my reply out carefully enough. I hope to get back to you later. But, in summary, I think we are forced by "reality" to somewhat temper our otherwise all-out advocacy for Christian values in law.

Political pragmatism is necessary in any seeking of power. Of course you can't just brute force your way into power (usually, and even then it will likely result in Bolshevik methods which is not ideal.) At the same time we as Christians should never view ourselves as political pacifists who cannot seek to influence law along our way of thinking.

Its not even as if the Christian left obeys this secular mandate. Leftist Christians have no problem appealing to Christian standards in order to justify their political positions, be it unlimited immigration or social justice/welfare. They only object to Christian principles in power when it comes to enshrining the sacred or when a policy is particular to Christians.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

That explains a lot. I was responding to the suggestion that we should basically make sin illegal.

You can't make all sin illegal but you can make the most important sins illegal or have grave consequences. We do this for hate speech, so why not blasphemy or mockery of God? Do you value humanity more than God?

Technically, he hasn't taken up governmental policy. More to the point, I have a difficult time finding exactly what laws to change or adopt.

Then perhaps you need to think harder about politics or avoid discussions of it totally.

I believe that the New Testament bears out that Jesus wants us to choose not to sin. If Christ were to run the government hypothetically, I believe that he would focus on making laws that can get justice for victims.

And what would this look like? Would Jesus be just a typical Democrat politician and let stores get robbed up to the value of 500 dollars?

That is because there are more voters for secular laws rather than making sure all sin is illegal and subject to Earthly punishment.

Strawman position. Never said to make all sin illegal but I would seek to make important sins illegal and reverse progressive changes in law towards a more traditional order. That being said you don't really need a majority, rather what you need is enough elite support to transform society and people generally follow. That's how America moved from a mostly Christian society to a Godless

That is a good question. Not being educated in philosophy, I think being free is why most or all rebellions get sparked. If someone is not hurting someone, they don't want to go to jail so they will rebel. It creates even more of a problem when the people above us influence government policy and try to tell us, let alone make us think or believe.

Are Christians free to seek their interests and have their concerns answered in government? Or must the Christians political participation hinge on how much they have the interests of non Christians in mind?

Look up what happened to the Cathars or the Spanish Inquisition. Then there was Bloody Mary who was King Henry VIII. England had broken away from Rome and Puritanism, Calvinism, and Lutheranism were spreading like wildfire. So killed so many of her own subjects they nicknamed her "Bloody Mary." She indiscriminately killed literally thousands of Protestants. Granted the Protestants did the same thing when Elizabeth became Queen. I'll stop with the history lesson but I don't want there to be any mistake about The Church literally killing off heresy.

Do you think those events were just happening all the time in Christisn history? Mary might have killed thousands but secular governments have killed millions, be they fascist, communist or democratic. If we're were to judge all of the deaths Christendom has caused versus liberalism/democracy/enlightenment, I think you'd find since the French revolution it has killed far more than Christendom had throughout it's history.

It was a different time and a violent time. I'm positive that their intentions were to make the world safe for practicing members of the Church but they killed many thousands of people to protect us. I'm sure Jesus wouldn't have different denominations killed off but what if there was a rebellion but those who don't believe that a crime has been committed when there is no victim? Would he smite them? All of them or just the Arme? But even the army gets their orders from somewhere. That comes from the politicians, and who elect the politicians. So it looks like he would have to genocide a whole group of people or let them live free if they haven't committed a crime.

One thing for sure is Jesus would not be as evil as the USA has been in it's bloodletting. Can we agree on that.

I don't think Christians are evil at all. It's just that some want to force conversion and some want people to choose to convert.

It's not that you think Christians are evil, it's that you seem to hold a special animus against Christians when they rule politically. By your reckoning it would appear Christians are simply incapable of good governance and the entire history of Christendom is one of unmitigated evil.

 

[Tuur]

JFK was a Roman Catholic, as you know the Roman Catholics have accounted for all kinds of sinful activities by having confession. So Catholics can be absolved of their sins as long as they have regular confession before an ordained Priest.

Umm... a Roman Catholic priest would have to answer this, but forgiveness is through Christ and contingent on repentance. If there is no intent to repent but to use the confession as a "get out of jail free" card, then is it of any effect? And if anyone thinks I'm picking on Roman Catholics, what about protestants who pray for forgiveness with no intent of repentance, or think that it suffices to pray down front during an alter call?

I'm a fine one to be talking about this, BTW. Maybe not with the same sins as JFK, but sin is sin regardless. I often pray for repentance - and that's a confession of a failing in dealing with sin, not a pat on the back.

I don't know how JFK stood before God; I don't know how anyone does. But I do know that there are those in every Christian denomination that relies on their church membership rather than Christ for salvation. One of the most terrifying things that Jesus said was that some would say to him "Lord, Lord," and He would tell them to depart from Him, that He never knew them.