Do Christians Believe in Democracy?

[Danmark]

When I first read that 57% of Republicans wanted to scrap the U. S. Constitution and establish Christianity as the State religion, I did not believe it. So I looked it up:
"Q17 (Republicans) Would you support or oppose
establishing Christianity as the national
religion?
57% Support establishing Christianity as the
national religion...............................................
30% Oppose establishing Christianity as the
national religion...............................................
Not sure 13% ..........................................................
Q18 Would you describe yourself as very liberal,
somewhat liberal, moderate, somewhat
conservative, or very conservative?
Very liberal 2% ......................................................
Somewhat liberal 6% ............................................
Moderate 17% .........................................................
Somewhat conservative 38% ..................................
Very conservative 38% "
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/ ... _22415.pdf

The question for debate is stated in the title.
The affirmative also contends that a huge segment of this country that considers itself 'super patriot' in fact is opposed to the Constitution of the United States and/or wants to repeal its most fundamental principle as stated in the 1st Amendment.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 7:

I wanna make it clear that I ain't trying to put claims, beliefs, or notions on ya, just that, if only to me, so, so many Christians... ... ...

I'm just glad we're allowed to believe in something by the non-Christians and dismayed that it has to be their gods.

I've never said Christians shouldn't be allowed to believe any goofy, irrational, silly, hateful, loving, good, right, or discriminatory thing they wanna. In fact, I propose the more they display of some of 'em, the more data we have.

That you might confuse my statement with "allowing" you to believe something is, if only to me, one more piece of data indicating the faulty thinking of theists / Christians.

Democracy is what I believe in however I also see the value in keeping long term wise rulers and the dangers of an ignorant mob.

What I'm getting at is laws based on "God says so", as opposed to "here's a good reason for it, whether God thinks it is or not".

For example, I believe, like many Christians, that 'feti' are human beings right there from the get-go. I don't think it based on religious reasons, but because, well there they sit. Such that I'd not argue "God says they're humans", but that I'd argue "Yes they're humans, and so's that'n a-carryin' 'em".

I am looking forward to heaven and God's rule which is less democratic.

My issue is when Christians, through their majorities enact legislation attempting to "help" folks "get into Heaven".

I have no desire to sit in a heaven full of folks I find to be buzz kills here on Earth.

I also don't think democracy works at home, in business or the class room so why does it suddenly work at the national level?

Beats me.

How come on the local, state, and national level so many Christians seek to legislate what a woman can do with her body? < That ain't to say you're one of 'em, only there's a bunch of 'em that do.

Which is why small government is best and I am just a realist.

I can't rightly argue against ya here.

I propose "small government" is relative to the one seeking their "one little law".

[DanieltheDragon]

To expand on my earlier point, about capitalism not really gelling with the new testament, Throughout the gospel you don't find instances of capitalistic ideals instead what we find is Jesus repeatedly stating that we must surrender our assets and give them to the power, not to have riches on earth but spiritual riches. There is a theme throughout the gospels that does not really gel with capitalistic ideas. Now whether someone believes in that or not is a completely different thing altogether. I just don't see capitalism in the new testament. Now the old testament I think you could make that argument, just not with the New testament.

I also believe that the concept of "godless capitalism" is also a bit of a pejorative generalization. The Tanakh is full of examples of giving to the poor. Charity is not necessarily anti-capitalist. It merely states that the economy should be controlled by means of the voluntary application of one's own assets toward the provision of goods and services. As ones actions become required and assets are not privately owned, those controlling the economy become less, not more interested in whether those assets actually provide goods and services.

Yes I did not mean to imply that charity cannot coexist with capitalism, several aspects of capitalism like private property and the accumulation of wealth, are antithetical to the message you find in the gospel which is to surrender property ownership and not accumulate wealth. The question of whether or not this is voluntary really has nothing whether something is communal or individualistic. There is a theme of voluntary collectivism that we find in the gospels not voluntary individualism.

I contend that the new testament leans towards collectivism not individualism. The old testament certainly has more aspects of individualism.

Charity in both cases is recommended. Charity however has nothing to do with whether something is collectivistic or individualistic.

[bluethread]

To expand on my earlier point, about capitalism not really gelling with the new testament, Throughout the gospel you don't find instances of capitalistic ideals instead what we find is Jesus repeatedly stating that we must surrender our assets and give them to the power, not to have riches on earth but spiritual riches. There is a theme throughout the gospels that does not really gel with capitalistic ideas. Now whether someone believes in that or not is a completely different thing altogether. I just don't see capitalism in the new testament. Now the old testament I think you could make that argument, just not with the New testament.

I also believe that the concept of "godless capitalism" is also a bit of a pejorative generalization. The Tanakh is full of examples of giving to the poor. Charity is not necessarily anti-capitalist. It merely states that the economy should be controlled by means of the voluntary application of one's own assets toward the provision of goods and services. As ones actions become required and assets are not privately owned, those controlling the economy become less, not more interested in whether those assets actually provide goods and services.

Yes I did not mean to imply that charity cannot coexist with capitalism, several aspects of capitalism like private property and the accumulation of wealth, are antithetical to the message you find in the gospel which is to surrender property ownership and not accumulate wealth. The question of whether or not this is voluntary really has nothing whether something is communal or individualistic. There is a theme of voluntary collectivism that we find in the gospels not voluntary individualism.

I contend that the new testament leans towards collectivism not individualism. The old testament certainly has more aspects of individualism.

Charity in both cases is recommended. Charity however has nothing to do with whether something is collectivistic or individualistic.

No, that is not true. Your collectivistic or individualistic dichotomy is a canard. HaTorah is all about community. It just sees individual responsibility as a community activity. I think your view of the teachings in the Apostolic Writings as leaning toward collectivism is probably the result of being influenced by those who preach what is called the social gospel. My problem with that prospective is that it is a form of replacement theology, ie the rejection of Torah submissive society in favor of modernist romantic egalitarianism. Charity in HaTorah is not recommended. It is commanded. There are no civil penalties attached to it, but it is not at all seen as just a good idea. That, I contend, is the point that Yeshua and the Apostles were reaffirming. It is easy for one to establish a fixed obligation and then go on one's marry way feeling all self righteous. It is more difficult to see every aspect of one's life as a part of the halakhah of Adonai's people. One is an individual, but one is also one of Adonai's people. The two are not dichotomous, but constitute an oxymoron to the nations, that makes perfect sense among Adonai's people.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 13 by bluethread]

There is a difference between an economic model of collectivism vs individuals and a community model. Charity family social functions etc, have no real bearing on how a specific model functions. In the Torah there is an idea of property ownership this is rejected in the gospels.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 13 by bluethread]

There is a difference between an economic model of collectivism vs individuals and a community model. Charity family social functions etc, have no real bearing on how a specific model functions. In the Torah there is an idea of property ownership this is rejected in the gospels.

Example please?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 13 by bluethread]

There is a difference between an economic model of collectivism vs individuals and a community model. Charity family social functions etc, have no real bearing on how a specific model functions. In the Torah there is an idea of property ownership this is rejected in the gospels.

Example please?

Matthew 6:19-20
"Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal.But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal.

Matthew 19:21
Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me


Luke 12:33
Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will never fail, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys.

Luke 18:22
When Jesus heard this, he said to him, "You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

Acts 2:45
They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need.

Acts 4:34
that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 13 by bluethread]

There is a difference between an economic model of collectivism vs individuals and a community model. Charity family social functions etc, have no real bearing on how a specific model functions. In the Torah there is an idea of property ownership this is rejected in the gospels.

Example please?

Matthew 6:19-20
"Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal.But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal.

Matthew 19:21
Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me


Luke 12:33
Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will never fail, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys.

Luke 18:22
When Jesus heard this, he said to him, "You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

Acts 2:45
They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need.

Acts 4:34
that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales

Now, what in HaTorah makes you think these are in contradiction with what it teaches?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 13 by bluethread]

There is a difference between an economic model of collectivism vs individuals and a community model. Charity family social functions etc, have no real bearing on how a specific model functions. In the Torah there is an idea of property ownership this is rejected in the gospels.

Example please?

Matthew 6:19-20
"Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal.But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal.

Matthew 19:21
Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me


Luke 12:33
Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will never fail, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys.

Luke 18:22
When Jesus heard this, he said to him, "You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

Acts 2:45
They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need.

Acts 4:34
that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales

Now, what in HaTorah makes you think these are in contradiction with what it teaches?

Not so much of a contradiction but a rejection, like to the story of job for instance God rewards Job for his hardships with property. Yet Jesus would have Job surrender that property and give his money to the poor. Do you see what I am getting at? While the Torah certainly promotes charity, it doesn't really promote getting rid of your property.

[bluethread]

Not so much of a contradiction but a rejection, like to the story of job for instance God rewards Job for his hardships with property. Yet Jesus would have Job surrender that property and give his money to the poor. Do you see what I am getting at? While the Torah certainly promotes charity, it doesn't really promote getting rid of your property.

Well, it appears that you missed the whole point of the book of Job. Yes, in the end Adonai gave Job a double portion of what he had lost, but had Job expected that He would have gotten nothing. Job was considered righteous because he said to Zophar, (Job 13:15) "Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him: but I will maintain mine own ways before him." Not that specifically, of course, but that attitude toward possessions, life being the most valuable possession. This indicates the difference between being rich and being wealthy.

Yeshua reaffirms this in the parable of the talents, where the one's who put the assets to work are praised and the one that let them sit idol was caste out. The point of Yeshua's parable of the rich farmer was that he built bigger barns. This reaffirms the stern warnings to the rich in the Tanakh and the commandments that assets are to be put to work and not hoarded. That is the point of Mt. 6:19-20. Mt. 19:21 & Lk 18:22 are accounts of advise to one who claims to have kept Torah and wanted to know what more he can do. That is by no means a universal call, but a call to those who wish to commit themselves to studying Torah full time. This is the same thing He said to His disciple, when He started to become popular. In Lk. 12 he is telling His disciple what they can expect and how they should then live. This is circumstantial, not universal instruction.

Finally, in the book of Acts, we see a spontaneous movement, not a commanded activity. We know this because of what Peter said to Ananias, "Whiles it remained , was it not thine own? and after it was sold , was it not in thine own power?" Voluntary communal living is by no means a bad thing. However, communism, an enforced economic system, is not supported by Yeshua, or the disciples of Yeshua. The problem with taking Yeshua's call to a devoted life with a universal societal command is that Yeshua does not focus on governance, but on voluntary personal devotion.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to bluethread]

what they can expect and how they should then live. This is circumstantial, not universal instruction.

That sort of depends on how you interpret it though. Regardless of that, the point you make above is why I say it is not a contradiction. It feels more of a change in a philosophical interpretation. Take republicans for example, over the past 30-50 years there has been a philosophical change to the republican platform. Where fiscal conservatism is overshadowed by social conservatism. Fiscal conservatism is still important and valued, but the rhetoric largely circles social issues with regards to emphasis. This is what I see, objectively speaking when I pull back. I can still see what you are saying, sort of lurking in the background but no one really comes out and says it. Just looking at the overarching themes though is the Jews and their relationship with YHWH. Part of that is the idea of the promised land for the descendants of Abraham. There is this idea or theme of ownership both individually and as a people. When you look at Jesus, he doesn't own any homes he isn't held up like David, or Solomon. He is a wanderer he rejects the ownership of property, he rejects quite literally earthly power(temptation in the desert). He both figuratively and literally rejects this notion. Yes it is voluntary but the emphasis has shifted. The figure head in these stories is humble, selfless, and is essentially without earthly possessions. Contrast that with the Torah and you have characters like David and Samson and Solomon. There is even a whole book dedicated to property in Ruth.

I am not saying there isn't an idea of charity, what I am saying is when you look at the characters and you pull back and you look at the overarching themes, the emphasis changes.

You have to admit it though, the gospels give a wink and a nod towards collectivism as a good thing and shy away from individualism. Just think about this, you can't be saved of your own accord or by your own works you need Jesus. This very bluntly puts individualism down.