Who Should Christians Vote for in 08?

[fordxer]

Somehow I knew that someone would venture into doing what is the normal path for many religious people – which is to attempt to use selected Biblical verses to justify their position – and sadly most of the time, to expose their lack of understanding of the Bible. If every part of the Bible is the Word of God and divinely inspired, then it would seem that people claiming to be Bible-believing Christians should give equal attention to it all. Many Christian fundamentalists are very eclectic in their appeal to the Bible, fastening on those passages which particularly interest them. In other words, quite unconsciously, they are looking at the Bible through the tint of their own glasses, and these effectively eliminate from sight what they do not want to see.

 

Oftentimes literalists are literal only when and where it suits them to be so. They are usually literalists when it concerns the second coming of Christ, Pro-life stances, homosexuality, the resurrection of Jesus as an historical event, the existence of eternal punishment in hell.

 

To fordxer’s point #1 above, I would add that there is even a rather large movement, especially in this country, today of what is called ‘prosperity Christianity’. But when Jesus says, ‘it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God’ (Matthew 19:24, Mark 10:25, Luke 18:25 for instance), they go to great lengths to interpret this in such a way that they do not themselves have to "sell all that they have and give to the poor" -- by citing other passages in the Bible, and trying to forget that is exactly what Jesus directed a rich young ruler who wanted to follow him to do.

 

Here we have the perfect example of pulling out just one verse (Before you were formed in the body of your mother I had knowledge of you, and before your birth I made you holy)– and using it to try and make their point (Jeremiah 1:5).

 

This is an attempt to twist the meaning of the Bible by never quoting the entire passage, which changes the meaning considerably. First of all, if you read the rest of the verses (Jeremiah 1:4-10), this is a special event -- the birth of a prophet. God brought the prophet Jeremiah into the world for a divine purpose, and because of that, God was planning Jeremiah's life "before" he was even conceived. God was preparing him to do miraculous things, such as speak on behalf of God while still a child and setting him up as an overseer of nations and kingdoms.

 

But the anti-abortionists simply overlook this on their way to claiming that the one phrase they quote proves God sees us as individual people while still in the womb. In essence, to claim this verse applies to anyone other than Jeremiah is to claim that we are all God's divine prophets. We are not all God's divine prophets, therefore, we cannot apply these verses to our own lives.

 

Using Mathew 19:14 as a pro-life argument shows a lack of understanding of its meaning but it does raise the concern for little children . . . so what about polluters for profit, and the politicians who work for them? When a politician creates or enables an environmental injury that causes unnecessary miscarriages, stillbirths, and live births -- isn't that politician an abortionist on an even greater scale (than even those abortion clinics etc)? What about social conservative politicians (and those that support them) who want to gut every social service program (yes, you can add universal health care in here too) that provide low-cost or free prenatal care and medical or nutritional support to expectant females? Doesn't the consequences of their acts -- make them abortionists or those that would prevent bringing the children to Christ?

 

It also begs the question (especially when one considers that over a thousand times the Bible states that we must be good stewards of earth – that which God has created), “How can one be a Christian and NOT be an environmentalist?” And yet, a sizable portion of those who call themselves Christians – are not environmentalists. In this country we have one of the highest mortality rates of any industrialized nation, and yet there are those (many so-called Christians) that argue against universal health care. Sounds like they have their priorities mixed up to me. Hmmm, I wonder if Jesus would notice that come judgment day?

 

 

This is a realm where fundamentalists tread in dangerous waters it seems to me the most – trying to justify their selfish stance against social programs (probably best described by ‘everyone is on their own mentality’). You can pull a verse here or there in an attempt to justify this self-absorbed theology against social programs that seek to help the weak (or left behind) as mandated (our capitalism works best if 4% are unemployed) by our society, but if salvation is what you seek then I would suggest digesting Mathew 25:31-45 until you understand it thoroughly because it is very clear that how you treat your fellow man clearly is an indication of your Christianity and will determine how you are judged.

 

Starting with verse 31:

When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

 

Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

 

The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

 

Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

 

They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

 

He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.' Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.

How I read the above: You can go to church seven days a week, proclaim that you’re a Christian to the ends of the earth, preach your version of Christianity to everyone you meet . . . but in the end, it really all boils down to - if you treat your fellow man (especially the weak) just as you would treat Christ himself – that is what makes you a Christian (Christ-like) – not how, and how often, you worship Him – and that - is what you will be judged on.

 

In short, notice above how Jesus communicates directly (and only has a problem) with the “righteous” on judgment day. Although the Bible has the ‘right and left’ in reverse to our current political mindset/policies/trends, note that those (the sheep) that had taken care of their fellow man, automatically were blessed. Words for thought in Mathew.

 

If I remember reading the topic heading correctly, "Who Should Christians Vote for in "08", that is how I answered, AS A CHRISTIAN. I am not forcing my beliefs on anyone at all. I just answered the question from my heart. I did not sy NON-CHRISTIANS should vote that way. I would not expect them to. So for you to tell me I am wrong is a hypocricy on your part because of the very "tolerance issues" you stated we should all have. I very firmly believe in helping my fellow man. But I do it from the faith side. Not because of some liberal politician who tells me that he will use as much tax money as he can get his hands on from my pay check and everyone elses to make sure that "the guys behind me has what he needs".

[Trimdingman]

Somehow I knew that someone would venture into doing what is the normal path for many religious people – which is to attempt to use selected Biblical verses to justify their position – and sadly most of the time, to expose their lack of understanding of the Bible. If every part of the Bible is the Word of God and divinely inspired, then it would seem that people claiming to be Bible-believing Christians should give equal attention to it all. Many Christian fundamentalists are very eclectic in their appeal to the Bible, fastening on those passages which particularly interest them. In other words, quite unconsciously, they are looking at the Bible through the tint of their own glasses, and these effectively eliminate from sight what they do not want to see.

 

Oftentimes literalists are literal only when and where it suits them to be so. They are usually literalists when it concerns the second coming of Christ, Pro-life stances, homosexuality, the resurrection of Jesus as an historical event, the existence of eternal punishment in hell.

 

To fordxer’s point #1 above, I would add that there is even a rather large movement, especially in this country, today of what is called ‘prosperity Christianity’. But when Jesus says, ‘it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God’ (Matthew 19:24, Mark 10:25, Luke 18:25 for instance), they go to great lengths to interpret this in such a way that they do not themselves have to "sell all that they have and give to the poor" -- by citing other passages in the Bible, and trying to forget that is exactly what Jesus directed a rich young ruler who wanted to follow him to do.

 

Here we have the perfect example of pulling out just one verse (Before you were formed in the body of your mother I had knowledge of you, and before your birth I made you holy)– and using it to try and make their point (Jeremiah 1:5).

 

This is an attempt to twist the meaning of the Bible by never quoting the entire passage, which changes the meaning considerably. First of all, if you read the rest of the verses (Jeremiah 1:4-10), this is a special event -- the birth of a prophet. God brought the prophet Jeremiah into the world for a divine purpose, and because of that, God was planning Jeremiah's life "before" he was even conceived. God was preparing him to do miraculous things, such as speak on behalf of God while still a child and setting him up as an overseer of nations and kingdoms.

 

But the anti-abortionists simply overlook this on their way to claiming that the one phrase they quote proves God sees us as individual people while still in the womb. In essence, to claim this verse applies to anyone other than Jeremiah is to claim that we are all God's divine prophets. We are not all God's divine prophets, therefore, we cannot apply these verses to our own lives.

 

Using Mathew 19:14 as a pro-life argument shows a lack of understanding of its meaning but it does raise the concern for little children . . . so what about polluters for profit, and the politicians who work for them? When a politician creates or enables an environmental injury that causes unnecessary miscarriages, stillbirths, and live births -- isn't that politician an abortionist on an even greater scale (than even those abortion clinics etc)? What about social conservative politicians (and those that support them) who want to gut every social service program (yes, you can add universal health care in here too) that provide low-cost or free prenatal care and medical or nutritional support to expectant females? Doesn't the consequences of their acts -- make them abortionists or those that would prevent bringing the children to Christ?

 

It also begs the question (especially when one considers that over a thousand times the Bible states that we must be good stewards of earth – that which God has created), “How can one be a Christian and NOT be an environmentalist?” And yet, a sizable portion of those who call themselves Christians – are not environmentalists. In this country we have one of the highest mortality rates of any industrialized nation, and yet there are those (many so-called Christians) that argue against universal health care. Sounds like they have their priorities mixed up to me. Hmmm, I wonder if Jesus would notice that come judgment day?

 

 

This is a realm where fundamentalists tread in dangerous waters it seems to me the most – trying to justify their selfish stance against social programs (probably best described by ‘everyone is on their own mentality’). You can pull a verse here or there in an attempt to justify this self-absorbed theology against social programs that seek to help the weak (or left behind) as mandated (our capitalism works best if 4% are unemployed) by our society, but if salvation is what you seek then I would suggest digesting Mathew 25:31-45 until you understand it thoroughly because it is very clear that how you treat your fellow man clearly is an indication of your Christianity and will determine how you are judged.

 

Starting with verse 31:

When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

 

Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

 

The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

 

Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

 

They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

 

He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.' Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.

How I read the above: You can go to church seven days a week, proclaim that you’re a Christian to the ends of the earth, preach your version of Christianity to everyone you meet . . . but in the end, it really all boils down to - if you treat your fellow man (especially the weak) just as you would treat Christ himself – that is what makes you a Christian (Christ-like) – not how, and how often, you worship Him – and that - is what you will be judged on.

 

In short, notice above how Jesus communicates directly (and only has a problem) with the “righteous” on judgment day. Although the Bible has the ‘right and left’ in reverse to our current political mindset/policies/trends, note that those (the sheep) that had taken care of their fellow man, automatically were blessed. Words for thought in Mathew.

 

 

How about stepping away from all of these rules? If you let the Bible rule you, then you are a slave. It is better to be able to think freely and unfettered. If you try to live the way the Bible tells you, then you will be like a pinball, and go nuts. Deeply religious people have blank stares. Their eyes look wild and unfocused. That isn't normal.

[Ralph Greene]

Still waiting for you to explain where the Wachovia guy misled us on barry's tax plan..

 

 

I answered it.

[Ralph Greene]

Uhh, I don't know what Hebrew studies you were involved in. But the original scripts say that Mary was a virgin.

 

 

Original Christian scripturers do, not the Jewish writings which are older. The Christians changed it go along with their idea of Jesus being divine. The Jews had no such notion at that time. The Christian Bible was put together at least a 100 years after Jesus death, Jewish writings go back a long time before that. You can cross reference this with Assyrian, Byzantine. and Cannonite writings of the time, which were more dominant cultures. The Christians were a very minor sect in their time, and were looked upon kinda like we look at the weird sects in Utah.

Edited November 3, 2008 by Ralph Greene

[Versa-Tech]

Original Christian scripturers do, not the Jewish writings which are older. The Christians changed it go along with their idea of Jesus being divine. The Jews had no such notion at that time. The Christian Bible was put together at least a 100 years after Jesus death, Jewish writings go back a long time before that. You can cross reference this with Assyrian, Byzantine. and Cannonite writings of the time, which were more dominant cultures. The Christians were a very minor sect in their time, and were looked upon kinda like we look at the weird sects in Utah.

I'm not even going there. I can't read hebrew and have no way of verifying this.

[Ralph Greene]

We were discussing how words and meanings get changed via translations, and the agendas of those doing the translation.

 

That's OK, it's just how things work.

 

Some time after the death of Jesus, Paul began talking up the teaching of an obscure Jew names Jesus. He was nothing special, Roman records of the time show somewhere around 600-800 rable rouser Jews were hung on a cross in the year Jesus died. He was just one of many.

 

However, his teachings were different. He spoke of a kinder gentler religion. One much easier to follow than the harsh Jewish religion and other religions of his time. So his following grew. His religion was easier. You could be a sinner, somene else paid for your sins. There was a better life after death, a powerful message to a bunch of illiterates who had a very rough life. These were a bunch of folks still in the bronze age in a world of Byzantines and Cannonites already in the iron age, with more advanced cultures.

 

Their religion and culture grew, the bible was assimilated from works of the time to make their case.

 

It is an amazing story. I don't have a problem with the story.

[RaZor]

If I remember reading the topic heading correctly, "Who Should Christians Vote for in "08", that is how I answered, AS A CHRISTIAN.

<snip>

So for you to tell me I am wrong is a hypocricy on your part because of the very "tolerance issues" you stated we should all have.

I do not believe that I stated that you were wrong. If it sounded that way, I apologize. All I did was attempt to clarify and expand on a couple verses you quoted and how they can be taken in a different way. That is also my right as a Christian. You see, there are many, many Christians would believe different and interpret the Bible in a different way than you might. There are probably more versions/views of Christianity than there are versions of the Bible. Not a single one can prove that they are right - and the only correct view. Over the years there have been hundreds (if not more) Biblical scholars that have pointed out the whole story of Jeremiah.

 

If you are thoroughly read in the New Testament then (as Ralph has pointed out) you MIGHT understand what Jesus brought was a kindlier gentler attitude to religion - one with tolerance (even for that guy behind you that has been unemployed etc - for whatever reason . . .For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat . . .).

 

Coming from a Baptist fundamentalist background, I have heard the 'take care of myself' attitude all of my life. . . which is why I felt compelled to post the Mathew passages - not to preach - just to point out that the Bible is quite different or at ends (and with that particular passage - which IMO is easily understandable no matter which version one uses) from the some of the normal social conservative right wing tacts.

 

With religious beliefs there really is no 'right or wrong' -- as very little of it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt - therefore, it pretty much all depends on one's faith. To assert that there is only ONE Christian view is, well, I won't go there.

 

A very good program to watch out for on the History channel is "Banned from the Bible" which touches on some of the many texts of the era that greatly expand on the Bible - and yet were not included in the (final) bound version.