Help I'm stuck!

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Dana Cashwell on November 4, 2008 at 10:16am

Rick Knock said:

Hi Dana,
I'd be happy to do what I can to help, though I'll admit to being more than a bit weary right now from all the other political threads! If I understand correctly, by "someone to argue with" you're looking for a devil's advocate so to speak? Someone to bring counterviews?
God Bless!

Rick

Yes, I am looking for a "devil's advocate"! This is the gist of where I want to go with it. I see modern day Republicans as Pharisees and modern day Democrats as Sadducees . Jesus was neither. That is something I think we can all agree on. With that said, I don't know what the counter arguments would be so I can defend my position. In order to make both of those sentences more than a statement of what I believe to be fact, I need proof; if you will. I need more than my clever definition of them.

Most people of my generation churched or un-churched, believer or non-believer, believe that Christians are primarily motivated by a political agenda of theocracy and the promotion of right-wing politics. (per The Barna Group research). I need a counter argument here as well.

I hope this stuff is making sense!

Just another recovering sinner,
Dana

Permalink Reply by Dana Cashwell on November 4, 2008 at 11:54am

Thanks Rick!

A Pharisee is a person that belonged to a group who followed the Oral Law in addition to the Torah and attempted to live in a constant state of purity, becoming self-righteous, hypocritical, or sanctimonious. Republicans tend to espouse certain beliefs and judge others while rarely living up to the beliefs they espouse.

A Sadducee is a person who accepted the literal interpretation of the Torah but rejected Oral Law and belief in the afterlife. Sadducees favored accommodation with the Roman occupiers of Palestine. Democrats are generally known to favor "accommodation" and "tolerance". While I believe that Democrats are also generally "good" people, they also have a tendency to disregard certain tenants of the faith.

Rick said:
2. For the statement itself, are you looking to question the statement that people believe this, or whether what they believe is true?

Dana says:
Both.

Permalink Reply by Dana Cashwell on November 4, 2008 at 4:06pm

The point of this chapter is to say yes we're too involved in politics in the wrong way. there is a right way and we're not accomplishing it because of our Pharisee or Sadducee like mentality. It will be read by Christians and non-Christians alike so lack of Christianese making things clear and direct is important.

So what? Who cares? What's the point?

It's a problem because we (believers) are losing the battle for America. Anybody involved in politics even to the slightest degree does care and if they don't, their apathy and indifference is proof of what should be done. The point is if we want to win this battle, we have to do this right.

A red herring for what?

Permalink Reply by Dana Cashwell on November 6, 2008 at 11:45am

Thanks to you all this really does help! With that said here is the first part of the chapter.

I don’t want to be a Pharisee…

There is a children’s song that says, “I don’t wanna be a Pharisee because their not fair you see…” This is something I completely agree with so let me explain. A Pharisee is a person who followed the Oral Law in addition to the Torah and attempted to live in a constant state of purity, becoming a self-righteous, hypocritical, or sanctimonious person. That sounds a lot like a particular political party that rhymes with shrepublican to me.

The Pharisees tried to follow all 613 commandments of the Oral Law to the letter and condemned everyone who wouldn’t or couldn’t. That is simply not fair. While life itself is not fair, it was not their job to condemn others. Their job was to be an example to follow. What they became were unintentional pawns of Satan, pushing the very people who needed God most away from Him. Sound familiar?

The world and for that matter the majority of my generation (myself included) in my experience believe that “morals” and “family values” are important and do play a role in our everyday lives. However, forcing someone who doesn’t believe that or that doesn’t define them in the same way to then adhere to those values by legislation (as many republicans want to do) is in and of itself morally wrong. We point to the fact that if we as Christians believe in free will as we claim and testify that God does. Why we would force those beliefs on others by that legislation? Shouldn’t it be their choice?

Personally, I know that this country was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs and it is because of those beliefs that we as a country are here today. Aren’t we still a democracy? Legislating behavior sounds a lot like repression, and oppression to me. How many wars have we fought against those very things? My point is, this is a very slippery slope and we need to take great care not to fall down the mountain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What do you think?

Thanks!

From another recovering sinner,
Dana

Permalink Reply by Julia Good on November 6, 2008 at 5:01pm

Dana I really liked how you compared Republicans & Democrats to the Pharisees & Saducees, respectively. I totally agree - however, I know that's not a popular belief...

Dana Cashwell said:

Rick Knock said:

Hi Dana,
I'd be happy to do what I can to help, though I'll admit to being more than a bit weary right now from all the other political threads! If I understand correctly, by "someone to argue with" you're looking for a devil's advocate so to speak? Someone to bring counterviews?
God Bless!

Rick

Yes, I am looking for a "devil's advocate"! This is the gist of where I want to go with it. I see modern day Republicans as Pharisees and modern day Democrats as Sadducees . Jesus was neither. That is something I think we can all agree on. With that said, I don't know what the counter arguments would be so I can defend my position. In order to make both of those sentences more than a statement of what I believe to be fact, I need proof; if you will. I need more than my clever definition of them.

Most people of my generation churched or un-churched, believer or non-believer, believe that Christians are primarily motivated by a political agenda of theocracy and the promotion of right-wing politics. (per The Barna Group research). I need a counter argument here as well.

I hope this stuff is making sense!

Just another recovering sinner,
Dana

Permalink Reply by Julia Good on November 6, 2008 at 5:28pm

Dana,

You said:

"Personally, I know that this country was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs."

Speaking from the Native American standpoint, this is a REALLY BIG turnoff! Namely that this country was founded on genocide and biological warfare in that the founders exterminated the Natives like a disease...

However, Native American Christians will probably agree with a lot of your stance, but if you use this phrase, you are going to make them close the book right here...

Another phrase not to use is, "Getting back to the principles of the founding fathers..." That scares them...

Juli

Permalink Reply by Dana Cashwell on November 6, 2008 at 8:12pm

Section 2

I don’t want to be a Sadducee…

That same children’s song has this line in it as well, “I don’t wanna be a Sadducee because their so sad you see…” Why are they sad? They lost hope. A Sadducee is a priest or aristocrat who accepted the literal interpretation of the Torah but rejected Oral Law and belief in the afterlife. Sadducees favored accommodation with the Roman occupiers of Palestine. They figured, “We’re screwed. So why not make life here a little easier?” Their belief was that people are going to do what they’re going to do; so just accept it and move on. You don’t have to agree but don’t tell them they’re wrong because Truth is not absolute. This was all in the name of tolerance. Sounds like the Democrats, huh?

The problem with that is Truth is absolute. Things really are black and white. The other problem was there was no accommodation for the Romans. The Romans dominated. Period. These are the same problems today. Truth really is absolute. If something is partially right and partially wrong, it is then wholly wrong. There is no accommodation for sin; it dominates.

I am not saying tolerance itself is a bad thing. On the contrary, tolerance when applied correctly is a great tool for people. Tolerance is accepting that people are allowed and should have differing views, not blithely accepting those views but accepting that they exist nonetheless.

My point here is that democrats use tolerance as a weapon. They use it judge others as judgmental. Ironic isn’t it? They say if you don’t accept the view you don’t accept the person. In case you didn’t know, that’s crap. I may not like the view or agree with it but it doesn’t make the person who holds it less a person. They are still human and as such, I love them.

Permalink Reply by Dana Cashwell on November 6, 2008 at 8:16pm

Thanks Julia! You're right but what to use instead? Maybe...The United Sates as a viable political entity for the world at large was based on Judeo-Christian beliefs. Could you suggest an alternative?

Julia Good said:

Dana,
You said:
"Personally, I know that this country was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs."

Speaking from the Native American standpoint, this is a REALLY BIG turnoff! Namely that this country was founded on genocide and biological warfare in that the founders exterminated the Natives like a disease...

However, Native American Christians will probably agree with a lot of your stance, but if you use this phrase, you are going to make them close the book right here...

Another phrase not to use is, "Getting back to the principles of the founding fathers..." That scares them...

Juli

Permalink Reply by Julia Good on November 9, 2008 at 1:50pm

Dana,

How's this

Many of this nation's founders were Christians who naturally carried some of their fundamental beliefs into the building of the country.

Or something like that...

Juli

Dana Cashwell said:

Thanks Julia! You're right but what to use instead? Maybe...The United Sates as a viable political entity for the world at large was based on Judeo-Christian beliefs. Could you suggest an alternative?

Julia Good said:

Dana,
You said:
"Personally, I know that this country was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs."

Speaking from the Native American standpoint, this is a REALLY BIG turnoff! Namely that this country was founded on genocide and biological warfare in that the founders exterminated the Natives like a disease...

However, Native American Christians will probably agree with a lot of your stance, but if you use this phrase, you are going to make them close the book right here...

Another phrase not to use is, "Getting back to the principles of the founding fathers..." That scares them...

Juli

Permalink Reply by Roger Dreger on November 10, 2008 at 9:04am

Hi Dana,

Let me start by saying this is a great discussion and I like the statement you used to start this whole thing going. The political party divide is sort of like how both sides of a war claim that God is on their side. You have Christians, mostly white and middle class, who are staunch Republicans and can not even consider voting for a Democrat. But you also have Christians who love the LORD, mostly minority, who are strong Democrats and could never vote for a Republican.

Couple of points on this: I lean Republican. I like where they stand on issues like abortion, and the homosexual agenda. I am a fiscal conservative even though the party lately has not been. But I hate the fact that the party is also for corporate give aways to pay back the people that gave them money to get elected. I don't like the gun lobby that thinks owning an automatic weapon is a God given right. So at times, I hold my nose and vote.

For those who tend Democratic, they like how they champion the poor and minority rights. They appreciate an emphasis on public schools etc. But if they believe the Scripture, they don't like the stance on abortion and the gay agenda.

The main problem is that while we should vote, we lose focus. Ultimately the cure for all our country's problems is found in a people, the Body of Christ, living out the kingdom of God. If there is an awakening at the national level , there will be fewer abortions, we will take care of the poor, people will be delivered from sexual bondage, etc. The "church" makes a lot of noise and gets all in a dither when there is an election or an issue. But there is not the same level of activity for preaching the gospel or caring for the poor. And I'll just throw this out, maybe we don't get the elected official we want because the LORD doesn't want us to stop praying. If we get what we want, the church often just rolls over and goes back to sleep.

So to sum up because I have to go to work, while we are to be involved in the kingdom of man, the political process, we are to spend most of our time and talents through the Holy Spirit advancing the Kingdom of God. Many of us like to do the former but not the latter.

Permalink Reply by Linda Daniels on November 10, 2008 at 9:49am

Hey Dana,

Here is a thought on the following comment (I hope this is applicable and on task... if not let me know :)):
"The point is if we want to win this battle, we have to do this right"
Who's battle is this? Is it ours or God's? What did Nehemiah do? What did Daniel and Ester and others in the Bible do? I don't see that their first strike was getting into politics trying to convince or lobby their position(although in some cases the Lord placed them in high ranking positions later on and then their Godly character won people over). But it was their broken hearts and love for their people that sent them to their knees repenting, interceded and petitioning to God for the rescue of their people and the situation they were facing. Do we as Christians spend enough time on our knee's allowing the Holy Spirit to lead and guide our words and actions, or do we take up the battle cry on our own and in our own strength, thinking we know what God wants us to do?? I think in order to "do this right" we need to follow the Biblical example of prayer, fasting, repenting and interceding for our country and let God do the rest...

I hope this helps and does not derail your purpose...

Your sister in Christ,
Linda :)


Dana Cashwell said:

The point of this chapter is to say yes we're too involved in politics in the wrong way. there is a right way and we're not accomplishing it because of our Pharisee or Sadducee like mentality. It will be read by Christians and non-Christians alike so lack of Christianese making things clear and direct is important.

So what? Who cares? What's the point?

It's a problem because we (believers) are losing the battle for America. Anybody involved in politics even to the slightest degree does care and if they don't, their apathy and indifference is proof of what should be done. The point is if we want to win this battle, we have to do this right.

A red herring for what?

Permalink Reply by Dana Cashwell on November 10, 2008 at 2:52pm

Linda that's great! here's the last bit.

I just wanna’ be a sheep…

The chorus of this song states perfectly how we should be politically. We should be sheep. Psalms 23 states that, “The Lord is my Shepherd…” We should follow the Shepherd and do His will. If we don’t we are in danger of losing our very souls. Matthew 23 says we as Christians have but one Leader and that is Christ. He may have placed others in authority over us as “generals” but that doesn’t mean blindly following them as if they’re the pied piper. If they go against the True Commander in Chief, it is our duty to replace them by peaceful means.

Personally, I don’t adhere to any political party. With that said, because of my biblical worldview there are certain issues that are non-negotiable for me. Some examples, I oppose gay marriage but support civil unions but only after a good marriage amendment. I oppose abortion but I’m pro-choice. I oppose child abuse (as most people do) but advocate for spanking. As you can see, I don’t hold to the “party” line for either party and neither does Jesus.

Jesus Himself had a unique way of supporting the things of God. He lived them. He did live in a constant state of purity, yet he was never self righteous, never a hypocrite, never sanctimonious. He never tried to change a person’s behavior but giving them more rules to follow. No, He loved them. He understood where there sin came from and why. He showed them how what they were doing was wrong not that they themselves were wrong. He had accommodation for them because sin can never dominate the love of Christ. He did hold them accountable and insure just consequences but He realized they would never understand that His consequences were not the same as theirs. Then He showed them the right way. This is what we need to do on both sides of the isle.

We, as sheep, need to follow his example. We need to LIVE the things of God. OK so we can’t live in a constant state of purity because we’re not perfect. However, the simplest way for people to learn is by pictures so we need to picture for them what good behavior looks like. We need to understand where their behavior is coming from and why. We need to show them, by own behavior; how what they are doing is wrong not that they themselves are wrong. We should have accommodation for them because sin can never dominate the love of Christ through us. We need to hold them accountable for their behavior by insuring just consequences while remembering our consequences are not necessarily the same as God’s. We need to show them the right way. We need to LOVE them.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page