I had asked another question about Christianity and Politics. I explained how religion and politics were not separate to first century Christians; I meant for this observation to have strong implications for the reader and my question. However, I feel many misunderstood what I was asking, so let me rephrase.
Many Christians feel the country will be better off ran by a Christian. However, it is hard to tell who is genuine, and religious beliefs do not necessarily ensure leadership and good decision-making. The question then is: should we revert (as many have) to the view that God's Kingdom needs to be manifest on this Earth and continue to vote for Christian presidents, feeling they are the best representatives of the country? Or should we except the country is based on the constitution and not the Bible and church and state are separate and vote for leaders completely regardless of their religious beliefs but because of their policies?
What would the first century Christians think?
2007-10-29 06:39:09 · 7 answers · asked by enarchay 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I watched an interesting program last night about how the conflict between christianity and islam may have started. It was all to do with the brits in India, how they lived in harmony with the religious beliefs there until one man (just one man) got all fundy on them and started preaching that islam was the work of the devil. That's when the trouble started. The christians tried to take over both the religious and political rule of India, and the Indians rightly rebelled, and still are doing!
So you tell me, do you think that religion and politics should be seperate or combined? Do you think that all religious and non-religious beliefs other than christianity should be subdued in order to have 'god's kingdom ... manifest on this earth'?
Do you want to be the one that starts that war for real?
2007-10-29 06:50:37 · answer #1 · answered by Grotty Bodkin is not dead!!! 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The problem is that just because a person says he is Christian does not make him a Christian.
The current President is a great example. I see little charity or caring for the down trodden. This is a major tenet of Christianity and spoken by Christ often. He also doesn't show love toward his enemies as Christ commands.
Enough said.
2007-10-29 13:46:00 · answer #2 · answered by sad_state_of_affairs 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Religious governments don't have a good track record. Hell, SECULAR governments don't have a good track record. I don't particularly care what government someone chooses to live under ----- just keep your guns out of my face, and we're cool. Me personally, I'm an anarchist for a reason. The U.S. is decidedly NOT based on its Constitution, and blending an existing monopoly on force with religious zealotry is a recipe for tyranny. A prime example currently sits in the White House.
2007-10-29 13:46:36 · answer #3 · answered by Zombie 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Vote for the Constitutionalists.
Hopefully their religious convections will give them backbone and character and a sense decency that will only add to the total package
2007-10-29 14:26:59 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You cannot seperate the two.
The Constitution was based on the Bible, therefore if a political leader does not support Biblical principles, neither does he/she support the Constitution.
2007-10-29 13:48:10 · answer #5 · answered by Molly 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
IMHO, the first century Christians were theistic socialists, so I think they would want a communal style theocracy, led by elders, probably.
2007-10-29 13:42:38 · answer #6 · answered by average person Violated 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Jesus had the best response to this dilemma as you may recall:
"Render unto Cesar the things that are Cesar's; and render unto God, the things that are God's."
2007-10-29 13:51:07 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋