Christian Theology and Government

[Saintopher]

I have heard many different groups who espouse a system of government that is influenced by Old Testament morals and values; my questions is these-

Where in the New Testament are believers ever encouraged to take political action?

Was the Old Testament Law ever intended to be the mode and method for universal law in light of Paul's teaching that "The Law is Spiritual?" (Rom. 7) More often then not, New Testament referrences to the Old Testament Law are conveying a spiritual principle. How far do we go in applying the spiritual to the natural?

Where did Jesus ever encourage political action for his followers, or demand changes in the system of his day?

Could it be that Biblical Fundamentalism is fundamentally missing the point?

Just some questions that I would like to throw out.

 

[Lighthouse]

Is murder wrong?
Is adultery wrong?
Is rape wrong?

 

[Jefferson]

Saintopher:

Do you suggest that Christians not vote? Do you suggest that all Christian congressmen resign? Should we just let the god-haters run wild knowing full well that our children will have to grow up in the vile society the god-haters create?

 

[Saintopher]

Is murder wrong?
Is adultery wrong?
Is rape wrong?

Yes, I believe that they are all wrong, and so do many others who don't necessarily uphold a Judeo-Christian worldview. While I do believe that each man intrinsicly holds the belief that these are wrong because they have been instilled in them by God, my point to the question is to try and rightly divide how these commandments were given in light of New Testament teaching as recorded in the teachings of Christ in the gospels and the Letters of Paul.

So your questions don't really answer my questions.

 

[Saintopher]

Saintopher:

Do you suggest that Christians not vote? Do you suggest that all Christian congressmen resign? Should we just let the god-haters run wild knowing full well that our children will have to grow up in the vile society the god-haters create?

No I do not suggest that they don't vote. I vote in each election. And no I would not suggest that any congressman who is a Christian resign.

I am also not saying that we should let the "god-haters" run wild. But what I am trying to acknowledge is the fact that the way that this political system is set up in this country, right or wrong, is a direct reflection of the majority's involvment or neglect of the process. And the other fact is that Christians are a minority group.

But again, before I take the time to get into anything else pertaining to this issue, I must also point out that you didn't really answer my questions either. Please read and consider the questions again before you reply.

 

[Lighthouse]

Yes, I believe that they are all wrong, and so do many others who don't necessarily uphold a Judeo-Christian worldview. While I do believe that each man intrinsicly holds the belief that these are wrong because they have been instilled in them by God, my point to the question is to try and rightly divide how these commandments were given in light of New Testament teaching as recorded in the teachings of Christ in the gospels and the Letters of Paul.

So your questions don't really answer my questions.

Trust me. I'll get to answering your questions.

Now, since you believe these things are wrong, do you believe they should be illegal?

 

[Saintopher]

Trust me. I'll get to answering your questions.

Now, since you believe these things are wrong, do you believe they should be illegal?

Yes, I do believe that they should be illegal, and under our laws they currently are.
To me these things are not necessarily matters of faith as much as they are systems of order within societies.

The main problem that I have with using the Bible as the sole justification for certain laws is Jesus' interpretation of some of those laws- i.e. "You have heard it said and eye for an eye and tooth for tooth...but I tell you if a man smite you on the cheek, turn him your other also."

So it seems to me that he is saying "even though that is what the law says, that doesn't mean that you should follow the law to the letter."

Also, given the fact that Rome was one of the most corrupt governments of all time, we never see Jesus or Paul admonishing their followers to try and take action to change the laws that are in place. Rather they seem to say to follow the laws that are in place as long as they do not conflict with God's laws; and if because of your disobedience to the laws that conflict you suffer for it, then you are blessed. Endure your suffering in meekness.

I look forward to reading your promised response.

 

[Lighthouse]

Yes, I do believe that they should be illegal, and under our laws they currently are.
To me these things are not necessarily matters of faith as much as they are systems of order within societies.

The main problem that I have with using the Bible as the sole justification for certain laws is Jesus' interpretation of some of those laws- i.e. "You have heard it said and eye for an eye and tooth for tooth...but I tell you if a man smite you on the cheek, turn him your other also."

So it seems to me that he is saying "even though that is what the law says, that doesn't mean that you should follow the law to the letter."

Also, given the fact that Rome was one of the most corrupt governments of all time, we never see Jesus or Paul admonishing their followers to try and take action to change the laws that are in place. Rather they seem to say to follow the laws that are in place as long as they do not conflict with God's laws; and if because of your disobedience to the laws that conflict you suffer for it, then you are blessed. Endure your suffering in meekness.

I look forward to reading your promised response.

Jesus was explaining that the laws were not to be followed in that way in personal relationships. But he never said the government should not follow the law. And Paul even wrote that the laws were made for certain people. The things within the law that we see are good laws for a soceity are good laws for any society. Murder, rape, adultery and the like should be illegal in all places. Not just because the Bible says so, but because these things are wicked, period. So the Bible is never the sole justification. If it were, then what could we say about child molestation? It's not specifically mentioned in the Bible. Of course, anyone with half a brain should be able to understand that it falls under the category of rape.

Now, what do you think the punishment for these things should be?

Murder:
Rape:
Adultery:

P.S.
Adultery isn't currently illegal in the US. But it should be.

 

[Saintopher]

Jesus was explaining that the laws were not to be followed in that way in personal relationships. But he never said the government should not follow the law. And Paul even wrote that the laws were made for certain people. The things within the law that we see are good laws for a soceity are good laws for any society. Murder, rape, adultery and the like should be illegal in all places. Not just because the Bible says so, but because these things are wicked, period. So the Bible is never the sole justification. If it were, then what could we say about child molestation? It's not specifically mentioned in the Bible. Of course, anyone with half a brain should be able to understand that it falls under the category of rape.

Now, what do you think the punishment for these things should be?

Murder:
Rape:
Adultery:

P.S.
Adultery isn't currently illegal in the US. But it should be.

I would be interested to see how you could prove from the Bible how you conclude that Jesus was only talking about personal relationships. I don't need it for my own edification but rather just for you to try your consistency. I only bring that up in light of the fact that you said

The things within the law that we see are good laws for a soceity are good laws for any society. Murder, rape, adultery and the like should be illegal in all places. Not just because the Bible says so, but because these things are wicked, period.

What I am curious of, is if the Bible is supposedly the standard by which these laws are derived (as they tell us what is righteous or wicked) then how can you know outside of the Bible that these actions are wicked?

How do I feel about the issues that you listed? And what do I think the consequences should be?

Murder- my personal opinion is that someone who commits cold blooded murder has given up their own right to life. I don't believe in them sitting in jail forever. I believe that if the person can be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt that their justice should be served to them quickly.

Rape- my opinion is that if a person is charged with this then it should first be proven that they did it, and if found guilty then the offender should be castrated. Then their desire to do that to someone else will probably be gone.

Adultery- I cannot really speak to this. The only Biblical record that we really have of such punishment is if 2 or 3 witness could confirm that the sin had been committed. The Pharisees brought an "adulterous" woman to Jesus and demanded that he carry out the Law by having her stoned, and he told them to let her go. The Apostle Paul brought up issues and even named people by name about the issue and he never insisted that they be put to death for it. He was a man of the Law.

In any of these cases I do not believe that the State has the obligation or business prosecuting on behalf of individuals who were not willing to press the charges. I recently wasn't picked for a case in Jury Duty because I told the State Attourney that I felt as though (even though I would still be able to hear the case) that I felt that if charges of battery were being brought against the defendant, then I thought it only morally fair that it be the victim who brought the charges and not the state. If an individual is not willing to take the risks associated with exacting "justice" then they too give up their rights to justice.

Personally I am not worried about being tried for any of these.

I am not in favour of the Government having too much say in some of these matters. Bob Enyart even said to a caller the other day how governments are corrupt. If they are corrupt it is because of power; and absolute power corrupts absolutely. They, like everyone else, would take a God given responsibility and use it for evil. You think Uncle Sam is bad now...just give him a religion to stand behind and you'll end up with a world of Pat Robertsons.

It is just plain and simple- Moses said that the Jews were "strangers in a strange land." Jesus even told the leaders of his day before he was executed by the religious crowd "my kingdom is not of this world."

There is a fine line where religion and politics cease to be able to mix.

 

[Lighthouse]

I would be interested to see how you could prove from the Bible how you conclude that Jesus was only talking about personal relationships. I don't need it for my own edification but rather just for you to try your consistency. I only bring that up in light of the fact that you said What I am curious of, is if the Bible is supposedly the standard by which these laws are derived (as they tell us what is righteous or wicked) then how can you know outside of the Bible that these actions are wicked?

How do I know that theses actions are wicked? Because I'm not an idiot.

How do I feel about the issues that you listed? And what do I think the consequences should be?

That's what I asked.

Murder- my personal opinion is that someone who commits cold blooded murder has given up their own right to life. I don't believe in them sitting in jail forever. I believe that if the person can be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt that their justice should be served to them quickly.

Okay. I agree.

Rape- my opinion is that if a person is charged with this then it should first be proven that they did it, and if found guilty then the offender should be castrated. Then their desire to do that to someone else will probably be gone.

This is where we disagree. I believe that they also should be executed. They will lose their desire to rape again, for sure.

Adultery- I cannot really speak to this. The only Biblical record that we really have of such punishment is if 2 or 3 witness could confirm that the sin had been committed. The Pharisees brought an "adulterous" woman to Jesus and demanded that he carry out the Law by having her stoned, and he told them to let her go. The Apostle Paul brought up issues and even named people by name about the issue and he never insisted that they be put to death for it. He was a man of the Law.

The people that brought the woman to Jesus were ignoring the law. They didn't even bring the man, nor was Jesus in a position of authority to allow the woman to be put to death. Not to mention, the Romans were not allowing the Jews to put people to death for adultery. So if Jesus had said yes, the Romans would have had reason to execute Him.

In any of these cases I do not believe that the State has the obligation or business prosecuting on behalf of individuals who were not willing to press the charges. I recently wasn't picked for a case in Jury Duty because I told the State Attourney that I felt as though (even though I would still be able to hear the case) that I felt that if charges of battery were being brought against the defendant, then I thought it only morally fair that it be the victim who brought the charges and not the state. If an individual is not willing to take the risks associated with exacting "justice" then they too give up their rights to justice.

I almost agree with you on this. But some cases a victim is scared. But justice should still be done.

I am also against juries.

Personally I am not worried about being tried for any of these.

I hope not.

I am not in favour of the Government having too much say in some of these matters. Bob Enyart even said to a caller the other day how governments are corrupt. If they are corrupt it is because of power; and absolute power corrupts absolutely. They, like everyone else, would take a God given responsibility and use it for evil. You think Uncle Sam is bad now...just give him a religion to stand behind and you'll end up with a world of Pat Robertsons.

It all depends on who is in charge. If God is in charge, then there is no problem. Many of Israel's kings were not wicked, and things went smoothly. And if a king is wicked, he'll die eventually.

It is just plain and simple- Moses said that the Jews were "strangers in a strange land." Jesus even told the leaders of his day before he was executed by the religious crowd "my kingdom is not of this world."

There is a fine line where religion and politics cease to be able to mix.

That's why politics should never be involved in religion, period.

 

[asilentskeptic]

That's why politics should never be involved in religion, period.

For the most part, I agree completely with you Lighthouse

I had 2 questions for you though. The main question is this: Since politics should not be involved in religion, should religion be involved in politics, and if so, how do we keep it from becoming the tool of corrupt men? (how do we keep things from going back to the dark ages, with the church in total control, and society and development being help back at the cost of the little people?)

My second question is more of an aside. (more for my personal contemplation than anything else). I was wondering what other form you would choose for trying someone if you do not believe in juries. One man? A designated committee charged with hearing evidence and dispensing punishment? I won't attack your opinions on this one at all, I just want some new forms to ponder (I seem to be pretty shallow minded when it comes to this and wouldn't mind a minor broadening of my horizons.)

Thanks!

 

[Saintopher]

For the most part, I agree completely with you Lighthouse

I had 2 questions for you though. The main question is this: Since politics should not be involved in religion, should religion be involved in politics, and if so, how do we keep it from becoming the tool of corrupt men? (how do we keep things from going back to the dark ages, with the church in total control, and society and development being help back at the cost of the little people?)

My second question is more of an aside. (more for my personal contemplation than anything else). I was wondering what other form you would choose for trying someone if you do not believe in juries. One man? A designated committee charged with hearing evidence and dispensing punishment? I won't attack your opinions on this one at all, I just want some new forms to ponder (I seem to be pretty shallow minded when it comes to this and wouldn't mind a minor broadening of my horizons.)

Thanks!

Good questions Skeptic- I had the same question after reading the post. If politics should not be involved in religion, then why should religion be involved in politics? And what proof is there that corrupt men would not abuse it?

 

[Saintopher]

How do I know that theses actions are wicked? Because I'm not an idiot.

Geeezzoo! You don't have to be rude about it...but more specifically I don't really consider this a valid answer. If I gave an answer like this then someone else would say that my belief then was strictly based on opinion...so then it would just be my opinion against another. There's no substance to that answer. I'll ask again; outside of the Bible (and your opinion), how do you know that those things can be called "wicked?"

On Rape-

This is where we disagree. I believe that they also should be executed. They will lose their desire to rape again, for sure.

You are certainly free to have that opinion about the punishment of rape...however, one thing that I would want to be careful of is the exact definition and nature of the rape. Even consentual sex between a minor and an adult can be tried as statutory rape. And what even derives the age of legality? Why is it 18 and not 25 or when the person drops out of school for good? Unfortunately not everything is so clear cut.

On Potential Abuse of Power

It all depends on who is in charge. If God is in charge, then there is no problem. Many of Israel's kings were not wicked, and things went smoothly. And if a king is wicked, he'll die eventually.

And how exactly does one know if God is truly in charge? Like the Skeptic pointed out, during the Middle/Dark Ages, the corrupt powers were actually doing what they thought was good and right, but they abused the power. How could anyone prove that God wasn't in charge? That is just such an impossible case to defend. Of course I guess I could buy it if God was proving his control by sending prophets whose staffs turn to snakes, or who can turn oceans into blood...but that hasn't happened in quite a long time. So I just don't buy this whole "if God were in charge" stuff because there is just no way to prove it.

That's why politics should never be involved in religion, period.

But it's OK for religion to be involved in politics? No matter how you try and present that one, then it is still up to the ruling majority. The players with the biggest armies win.

 

[Ecumenicist]

I have heard many different groups who espouse a system of government that is influenced by Old Testament morals and values; my questions is these-

Where in the New Testament are believers ever encouraged to take political action?

Was the Old Testament Law ever intended to be the mode and method for universal law in light of Paul's teaching that "The Law is Spiritual?" (Rom. 7) More often then not, New Testament referrences to the Old Testament Law are conveying a spiritual principle. How far do we go in applying the spiritual to the natural?

Where did Jesus ever encourage political action for his followers, or demand changes in the system of his day?

Could it be that Biblical Fundamentalism is fundamentally missing the point?

Just some questions that I would like to throw out.

Great question Saintopher.

This question brings to mind 2 scriptures for me: in the matter of taxes, render unto
Ceasar that which is Ceasar's, and in the matter of soldiers, Jesus healing the servant
of the Centurian.

My take on it is that Jesus acknowledges civil authority, but asks us to also remain
obedient to Him. It is possible to do both, as Jesus did it.

I agree that fundamentalists miss the point, as there was a theocratic regime in
place during the time of Jesus also, comprised of the Herodians, the Priests, and
Pharisees and others, all vieing for power.

By acknowledging the civil authority of the Romans, and snubbing the Theocratic
authority of the Jewish leadership, I think that Jesus' viewpoint is clear: A government
should protect its citizens, but not oppress; and people must be allowed to choose
Christ freely, not be forced into Judaism, Paganism, Christianity or any other religion by
oppressive government mandate.

Dave

 

[la_mariposa]

Geeezzoo! You don't have to be rude about it...but more specifically I don't really consider this a valid answer. If I gave an answer like this then someone else would say that my belief then was strictly based on opinion...so then it would just be my opinion against another. There's no substance to that answer. I'll ask again; outside of the Bible (and your opinion), how do you know that those things can be called "wicked?"

Because all human beings are created in God's image we all have in inborn sense of right and wrong. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil, humanity has eaten from it.

 

[Saintopher]

Because all human beings are created in God's image we all have in inborn sense of right and wrong. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil, humanity has eaten from it.

Yes, but it was because humanity then possessed the knowledge of good and evil that God banished them from the Garden; but that story comes from the Bible. I am asking how one can know outside of the Bible.

 

[la_mariposa]

Yes, but it was because humanity then possessed the knowledge of good and evil that God banished them from the Garden; but that story comes from the Bible. I am asking how one can know outside of the Bible.

ok, well regardless of weither or not you agree that we are made in God's image, do you agree that you have a conscience?? Humans are born with a conscience and it is society that hardens their hearts to that internal knowledge. If you disagree that you have a conscience please let me know. And were else could that have come from if it wasn't from the fact of being made in God's image.

We can all agree that evil exists.
For evil to Exist there must be moral standards
Were else to moral standards come from but God?

 

[la_mariposa]

How do I know that theses actions are wicked? Because I'm not an idiot.


That's what I asked.


Okay. I agree.


This is where we disagree. I believe that they also should be executed. They will lose their desire to rape again, for sure.


The people that brought the woman to Jesus were ignoring the law. They didn't even bring the man, nor was Jesus in a position of authority to allow the woman to be put to death. Not to mention, the Romans were not allowing the Jews to put people to death for adultery. So if Jesus had said yes, the Romans would have had reason to execute Him.


I almost agree with you on this. But some cases a victim is scared. But justice should still be done.

I am also against juries.


I hope not.


It all depends on who is in charge. If God is in charge, then there is no problem. Many of Israel's kings were not wicked, and things went smoothly. And if a king is wicked, he'll die eventually.


That's why politics should never be involved in religion, period.

In regards to murder and rape and all other sins for that matter, who are we to judge others and act out the power of life or death over them. Isn't God the only one with that kind of athority over anyone's life?

 

[la_mariposa]

I have heard many different groups who espouse a system of government that is influenced by Old Testament morals and values; my questions is these-

Where in the New Testament are believers ever encouraged to take political action?

Was the Old Testament Law ever intended to be the mode and method for universal law in light of Paul's teaching that "The Law is Spiritual?" (Rom. 7) More often then not, New Testament referrences to the Old Testament Law are conveying a spiritual principle. How far do we go in applying the spiritual to the natural?

Where did Jesus ever encourage political action for his followers, or demand changes in the system of his day?

Jesus defenatly demanded changes to the system of his day. It was the first century Chrisitans living out the model of the Chrisitan live as described in Acts that changed the Roman empire. Not in the armed political action of the zelots, but rather passifist love.

Could it be that Biblical Fundamentalism is fundamentally missing the point?

Just some questions that I would like to throw out.

Sorry for jumping around so much. I am trying to respond to a couple of points and am working my way backwards through the thread.

 

[Saintopher]

Jesus defenatly demanded changes to the system of his day. It was the first century Chrisitans living out the model of the Chrisitan live as described in Acts that changed the Roman empire. Not in the armed political action of the zelots, but rather passifist love.

Now that is a way that I can certainly agree with.