ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Quote:

---

What's the difference between activism and engagement? Should wilberforce have ignored the great evil of slavery (or Constantine) and simply relinquished it to the secular state, saying they don't see a call in scripture? What talents did they have to use, if not those? What talents do we have, if not our votes and ability to run for office and govern?

I think your argument at some point suggests we shouldn't vote for candidates with Christian morals or expect Christians to work toward a Christian state. There is an undoing of Christianity in this response (though I view it as unintentional): you claim as a Christian to know God and to serve Him and do right. Can you, with God given power to vote or govern, suddenly abdicate this knowledge or capability and still be a Christian? Can you oversee administering abortions or slavery while knowing it to be evil and still serve God?

Christ's call is totality, not plurality. Communities that thrive underground must go above ground or they have stopped thriving. It's an unfinished argument. Would you hide the light of the city on the hill because you're worried it will no longer flourish?

---

This is all good but ultimately beside the point of Christianity. The point of all political power is to gain the ability to tell others what they can and can't do, and to do keep others from telling you what you can and can't do. It's all focused on physical desires, material wealth, and earthly concerns in general. Politics has no control over virtue, goodness, or love. We Christians are called to care about the latter and eschew the former. As such, politics is only a distraction. Focus on virtue, goodness, and love. Either you will flourish or you'll be martyred, or something in between. Any of those ultimate fates are acceptable to us. It doesn't matter what the world does to us. That's not our problem. We follow Christ for eternal gain, not to gain some sort of earthly improvement or avoid earthly hardship.

---

I think some of this is your own interpretation or assumptions masquerading as fact (I do not say this to be offensive or insulting, merely matter of fact). Specifically I view your definition of 'political power' as such. Surely a virtuous Christian can take office with the intent to eliminate commercial sex trafficking and it can be more than just wanting to tell others what to do, it can be an actual good even if 'political power' is used.

Also what if you ask others to do good? What does a priest do, but absolve? Or withhold absolution from those that sinned while they make restitution! Yet this is not a negative to society. The administration of justice is important to the Christian.

If we are God's priests and here to re-consecrate His creation, we would be loath to neglect it by attributing all of the political realm to secularism and retreating. We are to multiply and subdue the earth. Politics is a form of ordering and subduing. The Christian retreat from politics because of the sin of man is abdication of responsibility.

"The Eastern Orthodox Church and virtually every historic Protestant that I know of does NOT want clergy as their representatives on both the state and federal level."

Agreed. Much more crafty to have puppets like Putin, to do the fighting for you right? I know that's a stretch, but then again... <LINK>

Folks. We Reformed made sure that that was in the constitution. We're good to go.

Sad.

God even used King Cyrus for some good to occur.

AGC said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Quote:

---

What's the difference between activism and engagement? Should wilberforce have ignored the great evil of slavery (or Constantine) and simply relinquished it to the secular state, saying they don't see a call in scripture? What talents did they have to use, if not those? What talents do we have, if not our votes and ability to run for office and govern?

I think your argument at some point suggests we shouldn't vote for candidates with Christian morals or expect Christians to work toward a Christian state. There is an undoing of Christianity in this response (though I view it as unintentional): you claim as a Christian to know God and to serve Him and do right. Can you, with God given power to vote or govern, suddenly abdicate this knowledge or capability and still be a Christian? Can you oversee administering abortions or slavery while knowing it to be evil and still serve God?

Christ's call is totality, not plurality. Communities that thrive underground must go above ground or they have stopped thriving. It's an unfinished argument. Would you hide the light of the city on the hill because you're worried it will no longer flourish?

---

This is all good but ultimately beside the point of Christianity. The point of all political power is to gain the ability to tell others what they can and can't do, and to do keep others from telling you what you can and can't do. It's all focused on physical desires, material wealth, and earthly concerns in general. Politics has no control over virtue, goodness, or love. We Christians are called to care about the latter and eschew the former. As such, politics is only a distraction. Focus on virtue, goodness, and love. Either you will flourish or you'll be martyred, or something in between. Any of those ultimate fates are acceptable to us. It doesn't matter what the world does to us. That's not our problem. We follow Christ for eternal gain, not to gain some sort of earthly improvement or avoid earthly hardship.

---

I think some of this is your own interpretation or assumptions masquerading as fact (I do not say this to be offensive or insulting, merely matter of fact). Specifically I view your definition of 'political power' as such. Surely a virtuous Christian can take office with the intent to eliminate commercial sex trafficking and it can be more than just wanting to tell others what to do, it can be an actual good even if 'political power' is used.

Also what if you ask others to do good? What does a priest do, but absolve? Or withhold absolution from those that sinned while they make restitution! Yet this is not a negative to society. The administration of justice is important to the Christian.

If we are God's priests and here to re-consecrate His creation, we would be loath to neglect it by attributing all of the political realm to secularism and retreating. We are to multiply and subdue the earth. Politics is a form of ordering and subduing. The Christian retreat from politics because of the sin of man is abdication of responsibility.

---

Apologies for such a long interval between replies. I've been distracted. I won't deny that a Christian can take political power and do good, like limiting things like human trafficking. Political power is collective power, and of course more can be done with collective power than with individual power. So please read the rest of my reply in that light.

My main objection to this is the idea that it is both good and necessary for Christians to engage in political squabbles in order to enact good in the world. I would argue that the sum of all Christian actions in a given domain comes out pretty close to a stalemate. Slavery in the US is a good example. For all the Christian abolitionists in the North, there were as many or more Christian slavers in the South. The same can be said for things like abortion now. For every pro-life Christian against, you could probably find a pro-choice Christian. This is true for all these major political battles. Because politics twists the minds of people, including Christians. In the short years of my life I have personally heard Christians that support abortion rights, support torture, support preemptive warfare, support LGBTQ rights, and support the bombing of civilians. And I'm not really that old. Politics has it's own character and nature, and you have to conform to that. SAINT Constantine the Great killed his wife and son, because they challenged his power. Christian popes, kings, presidents, and every other kind of authority have done heinous things in the name of keeping power. All so they could impart Christian good on the world. To sum, politics isn't some innocent game where Christians can show up and exercise their faith for the good of man. Politics is a game of moral compromise where the truly virtuous get kicked to the curb before they can ever make a real impact.

Even if that were not so, the statement to which I objected asserted that Christians are forced into one of a few camps of political activism. I merely asserted that non-activism is perfectly good for Christianity. This seems self-evident to me, but I can be more explicit. Human trafficking is bad, but not every Christian is required to spend their whole life actively opposing human trafficking. Healing the sick is good, but same scenario. Protecting the weak in the same, but again. We have any number of virtuous paths that we can follow as Christians. Some people even completely withdrawal from the world and become hermits, and those people have been responsible for some great Christian writing and thought. So I take umbrage to the idea that full bore political activism is a Christian mandate, even if I thought political activism is an absolute good. Which I most definitely do not

See Christians William Wilberforce and John Newton in 18th Century Britain. Slavery had been acceptable since the fall.
Abraham was commanded to circumcise slaves he bought.
Paul tells slaves to obey their masters.

He knew the Gospel has to spread first before the law was more accurately depicting the Imago Dei in Genesis 1 and 2.

Moreover, all legislation is legislating morality. Name one piece of legislation which does not connect to morality.

Sorry for bumping an old thread, but wanted to share without creating a new thread. I think it's an interesting hypothesis that women are, to put it bluntly, too dumb to realize that all their promiscuity and sticking it to the patriarchy is really just giving the patriarchy/men what it wants.



Video won't post can search YouTube - THIS Is Why "Casual" Sex Is DESTROYING Women…

"women are too dumb" - you sure you want to go with that?

PabloSerna said:

---

"women are too dumb" - you sure you want to go with that?

---

That's what she's essentially saying in the video.