According to the bible, should Christians be involved in politics?

[Houseman]

"They are no part of the world, just as I am no part of the world." - John 17:16
"We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of the evil one." - 1 John 5:19
"Adulteresses! Don't you know that friendship with the world is hostility toward God? So whoever wants to be the world's friend becomes God's enemy" - James 4:4
"If you belonged to the world, the world would love you as one of its own. But because you do not belong to the world and I have chosen you out of it, the world hates you." - John 15:19
"What God the Father considers to be pure and genuine religion is this: to take care of orphans and widows in their suffering and to keep oneself from being corrupted by the world."- James 1:27

The world is "under the control of the evil one", that is, Satan, and that to make friends with the world, is to become God's enemy. The world should hate Christians. Christians should distance themselves from it.

Being so loved by the world that it elects you to a seat of governmental power seems to be in direct conflict with these verses. Fighting in wars for your chunk of the world also seems to be in conflict with these (and other) verses. Same goes for having nationalistic pride, and "pledging allegiance" to a nation.

Furthermore, I'm not seeing anything in the bible urging Christians to seek seats of power, to try and influence or fix "the world", rather that is for God to do.

Are Christians, then, to protest? To lobby? To influence congregations to vote in a certain way? To try and get policy changed to reflect what they think is best? Is this being "no part of the world"? I don't think so.

What do you think?

 

[Sneed's SeednFeed]

Abrahamic religions are very loose when it comes to hierarchy, but they are all revolutionary in destroying old hierarchies. Judaism is about the Mosaic Law, about emancipation from bondage, Christianity is about the destruction of that old law in favour of a universal empathy, and Islam is about fealty to God and achieving universality. Each of them actively fought against the old order and constituted a new one, with there being various interpretations of hierarchy, but almost all agree that there's a separation between the way the world is, the way the world ought to be, and the supremacy of the almighty as a well of liberation, unity and compassion. The unificational dimension of Abrahamism is explictly a political consequence.

Put it simply, politics has no place in Abrahamism, rather than Abrahamism having a place in politics. Any social motion is always already political in religion as a whole.

As for evidence of Christians feeling it's their duty to engage in politics, the Quakers, literally the entire protestant reformation, the Jesuits and the entire current of liberation theology and the 'preferrential treatment for the poor' are all examples where Christianity did intervene, very often justifiably and sometimes righteously so in politics based on Christian conscience. For a modern example, the Quakers were largely opposed to the Vietnam War and expelled Nixon as a result for flouting their moral principles. Considering the costs of that war to the US, their mobilisation and protesting against it was absolutely for a general moral good. On that level, I'd say they should have and did participate.

In sum, the question as to whether or not it has a place in politics is arbitrary -- in many instances it already does. The separation of Church and State in the US was never about secularising the State but about preventing Catholics from holding positions of power. Most modern western laws are based on Christian morality and Roman law, and really, as the greatest critic of Christianity, Frederich Niezsche examined in On The Genealogy of Morality, most normative ethics are Christian in essence, even those that claim atheism.

http://www.inp.uw.edu.pl/mdsie/Political_Thought/GeneologyofMorals.pdf

 

[Trunkage]

I'm far more concerned by the televangelist stealing money off poor people so they might achieve economic success.

But that's because we have Jefferson's Wall. Christians have kill millions and millions of people when in power, so these quotes are probanly right. We had to ban them for poltics they were so dangerous

(And Id point out that the current politcal climate isnt much better.)

 

[ralfy]

Definitely, as some things that they are against involve political policies.

 

[Palindromemordnilap]

I think if churches are going to be involved in politics they should be involved all the way and pay taxes like everyone else. Can't say you're separate from that but then go endorsing candidates anyway

 

[SupahEwok]

According to the Bible Christians should be putting all their possessions and property into a communal pot to be redistributed to members in need.

How's that for political?

 

[Houseman]

According to the Bible Christians should be putting all their possessions and property into a communal pot to be redistributed to members in need.

How's that for political?

Is that what just what some people in the bible did, or is that what the bible says we should do?

 

[Agema]

Ultimately, I think if your religion tells you to go out and do good in the world, trying to avoid politics is a form of self-defeat. And I say that despite some severe reservations about plenty of the aims of the religious, that they interfere in politics over.

 

[Houseman]

Ultimately, I think if your religion tells you to go out and do good in the world, trying to avoid politics is a form of self-defeat. And I say that despite some severe reservations about plenty of the aims of the religious, that they interfere in politics over.

I would agree that participating in politics could put one in a position to a far greater amount of good than one who doesn't. We could also say that striving to become as rich as possible would put one in a position to do a greater amount of good, since you have more money to give away.

But the "goal" of the religion is, arguably, not to go out and do good in the world. I'd say that's a secondary or even tertiary goal. The verses I posted make it clear that "the world" is evil and corrupting, and that Christians should remain separate from it.

Think of it like this. Imagine some comically evil government is in power where you live. Would you join up with them and try to make them better from the inside, in an attempt to do good? Or would joining make you complicit in all the evil that they do?

 

[happyninja42]

Is that what just what some people in the bible did, or is that what the bible says we should do?

that's part of the problem, depending on what christian you talk to, they will often tout the actions of someone as proof that the bible endorses, or prohibits something. Despite a huge section of the old testament, not only approving slavery, and also giving you specific instructions on how to purchase and treat your slaves, many christians will say "yeah well Paul told his slave friend to go tell his master he didn't want him to be a slave anymore, so that means god prohibits slavery." when all it actually means is the person Paul didn't want ONE person to be a slave, because he liked them. But good luck actually getting a christian to admit that. Most of the time they try and dance around the idea that "the bible endorses slavery directly in the text" with circular bullshit.

So whether the bible says it, or just someone did it, isn't a distinction christians actually acknowledge. If it supports their belief, the bible says it, if it contradicts their belief, "it doesn't say that" or "you're taking it out of context", and a litany of other bullshit rationales.

 

[SilentPony]

Keep in mind the bible is terrible. Its not a book of forgiveness and mercy, it a child's horror story anthology of what the spooky Desert God will do to you if you don't listen to the patriarch of the family.
The bible has way way WAY more justifications to kill/rape people than it does against it. Even Jesus and his do-overs wasn't exactly nice about it, although props for taking up a whip and whipping money lenders asking for handouts in the temple. Yeah asking for donations is a big no-no. So is refusing to pay taxes and not listening to the local government.
Also since this is fun, the Bible doesn't say abortion is wrong. In fact the only thing it says about abortion is how to do it safely.

Just always remember there a thousand cuts of the Bible in a thousand languages, and every charlatan and prophet picks and chooses what they want to get you to give them something. I went to 12 years of Catholic school. Ive seen the Bibles the priests use for sermons - entire books are ripped out, passages blacked out or cut out. Things they don't want to accidentally say or read or have others see are removed because its inconvenient mention of I think it was 27 reasons to kill someone for approaching the tabernacle or disagreeing with a father/uncle/older brother on anything.

My point being most 'Christians' aren't 'Christians' in any sense of the word and don't really use/believe in the Bible. They already have their beliefs and just say the Bible supports them.

 

[Houseman]

Even Jesus and his do-overs wasn't exactly nice about it, although props for taking up a whip and whipping money lenders asking for handouts in the temple. Yeah asking for donations is a big no-no.

I'm pretty sure that those people that Jesus kicked out weren't asking for donations, or at least, the Bible doesn't say anything about "donations" in those verses, so I question where you're getting that from.

Also since this is fun, the Bible doesn't say abortion is wrong. In fact the only thing it says about abortion is how to do it safely.

I've heard this several times before and can refute it from memory. This was actually just a miraculous (as in, it only works through miracles), way to determine whether or not someone committed adultery. They would drink a mixture, and then, if and only if they were guilty, bad things would happen to them.

The Bible never mentions a fetus. This is inferred by Numbers 5:21 where it mentions that the "thigh [would] fall away", among other things. Nobody can know what this means for certain. People think this means the baby, and therefore this means an abortion. But the Bible never says that the woman needs to be pregnant as a prerequisite for any of this, so that should cast doubt on the hypothesis that this means "the fetus".

If they were innocent, nothing bad would happen, which should make it clear that this wasn't some sort of abortion potion.

The Old Testament does, however, say that if you hurt a pregnant woman, and the baby dies, that you must give your life for the life you have taken, at Exodus 21:22,23.

 

[happyninja42]

The Old Testament does, however, say that if you hurt a pregnant woman, and the baby dies, that you must give your life for the life you have taken, at Exodus 21:22,23.

It also says that god will punish the israelites by destroying their unborn children, who will die at birth, or perish in the womb. (Hosea 9:10-16)
It also says, that for rebelling against God, Samaria's people will be killed, their babies will be dashed to death against the ground, and their pregnant women will be ripped open with a sword (Hosea 13:16)
And several other examples of God and his chosen not giving a shit about unborn children, and making a point to cut open pregnant women to make sure their babies die.

So it's hardly a glowing declaration of the sanctity of life in that book. Almost like it was written by tons of different people with different views about things, and not from a single, all powerful being who would, I don't know, be consistent with his views on what he does/doesn't like/allow.

 

[Houseman]

It also says that god will punish the israelites by destroying their unborn children, who will die at birth, or perish in the womb. (Hosea 9:10-16)
It also says, that for rebelling against God, Samaria's people will be killed, their babies will be dashed to death against the ground, and their pregnant women will be ripped open with a sword (Hosea 13:16)
And several other examples of God and his chosen not giving a shit about unborn children, and making a point to cut open pregnant women to make sure their babies die.

Yes it does. The question was: What does the bible say about abortion? God sentencing someone and their unborn child to death doesn't necessarily say anything about it. I would think that the verse in Exodus, at the very least, makes it clear that an unborn child is to be viewed as a life. That provides a basis for the "when does life begin?" part of the discussion.

 

[Agema]

I would agree that participating in politics could put one in a position to a far greater amount of good than one who doesn't. We could also say that striving to become as rich as possible would put one in a position to do a greater amount of good, since you have more money to give away.

Depends on how you make it. I don't think any amount of donations would make up for money raised by clubbing people over the head and stealing their wallets. By which point I'm also going in the direction that I have a limited tolerance for Christians who engage in dubious, exploitative business practices on the grounds that it's legal, capitalism, blah blah blah. See also below.

But the "goal" of the religion is, arguably, not to go out and do good in the world. I'd say that's a secondary or even tertiary goal. The verses I posted make it clear that "the world" is evil and corrupting, and that Christians should remain separate from it.

Parable of the Good Samaritan... just saying.

A duty of care and good conduct is clearly part of some Christian denominations. Lots of the Bible is really about detailing good conduct on Earth. I mean, "love thy neighbour" and all that jazz might not be handing out precise guidelines for specific circumstances, but it surely is presenting a general tone of a duty of respect and care for your fellow humans. I do not see how it could be considered consistent with exploitation, even if that exploitation is legal according to the temporal authorities. If your workers don't earn enough to feed themselves, pay them more. It's just fucking bizarre to not do so, and then give to charity.

Think of it like this. Imagine some comically evil government is in power where you live. Would you join up with them and try to make them better from the inside, in an attempt to do good? Or would joining make you complicit in all the evil that they do?

I think as long as your job doesn't critically compromise you, it's a valid thing to do. For instance, if your job involves murdering people for the regime, it's still murder in the eyes of God, even if you're planning to use your position to make less murder occur.

 

[Kwak]

Yes it does. The question was: What does the bible say about abortion? God sentencing someone and their unborn child to death doesn't necessarily say anything about it. I would think that the verse in Exodus, at the very least, makes it clear that an unborn child is to be viewed as a life. That provides a basis for the "when does life begin?" part of the discussion.

Hang on - do you think the bible is literally supernatural knowledge from the universe given to us? Why would not science and biology provide the basis for that question?

 

[happyninja42]

Yes it does. The question was: What does the bible say about abortion? God sentencing someone and their unborn child to death doesn't necessarily say anything about it. I would think that the verse in Exodus, at the very least, makes it clear that an unborn child is to be viewed as a life. That provides a basis for the "when does life begin?" part of the discussion.

...how does god sentencing an unborn child to death, NOT say anything about that god's stance on the sanctity of life and stance on abortion? Which is the act of ending an unborn child's life?


And to your comment about "well their isn't anything that says a woman has to be pregnant to take what is essentially a purity test to see if she committed adultery" and if she had, "bad things would happen". Come on, what do you honestly think would actually happen to a woman that could be confirmed? They don't make the guy do it. So it's clearly a case of seeing if they were pregnant, and had a reaction to an abortive being administered to them.

 

[Houseman]

Hang on - do you think the bible is literally supernatural knowledge from the universe given to us? Why would not science and biology provide the basis for that question?

The question was: "What does the bible say about abortion?"
Giving the bible's answer to that question was the main focus of my post. What science and biology says is irrelevant, and what I think about the bible is also irrelevant, supposing we just want to find out what the bible says.

...how does god sentencing an unborn child to death, NOT say anything about that god's stance on the sanctity of life and stance on abortion?

How does it?
God killed a lot of people. Does that mean that life is not sacred, and should not be protected?
What conclusions can you draw about "the sanctity of life" or "abortion" from one of God's executions? "It's okay to kill men/women/adults/children/babies/the unborn because God did it?"

Come on, what do you honestly think would actually happen to a woman that could be confirmed?

I think what would happen would be what the bible says would happen, that "the belly would swell and the thigh would fall away".
I'm not seeing how that's "clearly" a pregnancy test or "clearly" an abortive, but I'm also not claiming that it definitely isn't. I'm just saying that there is plenty of evidence that casts doubt on that theory.

 

[SilentPony]

SNIP

You don't get it - its not saying the unborn child is alive. Its saying to prove a woman didn't have an affair and isn't pregnant by another man, force her to have an abortion. If she's innocent, nothing happens. If she's pregnant, then we can punish her again. In this the killing of the unborn isn't even the punishment, its merely the trial. The unborn child is evidence, specifically to be removed, to prove guilt. The child doesn't matter - the father of the child matters. And you didn't quote the entire passage, but I will:

The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the Lord. Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. After the priest has had the woman stand before the Lord, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder-offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries


Its a trial. To prove she's not pregnant, and the means is to drink a potion that will kill her unborn child. If she's not pregnant, no harm done. If she is the child not fathered by her husband dies, and then presumably she's stoned to death 'cause adultery is a capital crime. And by curse they don't mean a magical curse, they mean literally a curse word. What this woman has done is so foul her name is to be a curse word - instead of Go fuck Yourself, its now Go Eve Yourself. The woman is to become a word of curse, not she's placed under a magical curse. The curse is "may the Lord cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries " as in if you tell a woman "I hope you Eve" this is what you mean, same way Go To Hell is a curse, but we know we're not actually summoning demons.

 

[Houseman]

You don't get it - its not saying the unborn child is alive.

The verse that implies that an unborn child is alive comes from Exodus. The verse talking about the alleged "abortion potion" comes from Numbers. I'm aware that the verse from Numbers doesn't say that the unborn child is alive. I think you're the one who got mixed up between the different conversations that are going on.

Its saying to prove a woman didn't have an affair and isn't pregnant by another man, force her to have an abortion.

I understand that's what you think it says. I disagree, and I've already put forth my arguments as to why, namely:

1) The bible says nothing about the woman being pregnant or not, only whether or not the woman is guilty.
2) The actual word in question, found here, does not explicitly refer to "womb"