No Compusion?

[ContraMundum]

The key word here is 'valid'. What you are doing in that case is comparing your 'ideal' of your own religion to the reality of others.

Makes it real easy for your religion to come out ahead.

At the same time there is a very strong undercurrent of believers who are trying to make Christianity into a political force. And they are pretty loud about it.

.

Politics, politics, politics. Is this all other religions are to you? Strings of dogma and politic machinations to study in your paper petrie dish?

If this is all the Baha'i faith is- kvetching about whatever is on the news, then no wonder nobody really cares about it. Please tell me that your religion actually teaches something other than "attack others in this order: first Christians, then Jews, and finally Muslims. But defend Islam to the hilt, but only when it suits"

Simple fact: there have always been, and always will be Christians who believe that there is no call to form a political party in the NT, nor is there a type of Christian discipleship that seeks to force its will on others. It's simply not there like it is in your religion (your founder's NWO and as also evident in this forum) or Islam.

 

[WoodrowX2]

Maybe to you, a non-Christian. Not to me. I don't see Christianity as having a valid political arm.

Welcome to the American Christian Lobbyists Association (The ACLA). The primary mission of the ACLA is to encourage conservative Christian voters across the United States to participate in our nations grassroots legislative lobbying process by utilizing one of the ACLA's grassroots lobbying resources to contact your states elected officials in the U.S. House of Representatives and/or U.S. Senate on Abortion-End Of Life, Christian Free Speech or Marriage and Abstinence bills that are currently pending before the 113th U.S. Congress between now and the U.S. Midterm Elections on Tuesday, November 4, 2104.

SOURCE

Welcome to the online home of one of the largest conservative grassroots political organizations in America.

Christian Coalition offers people of faith the vehicle to be actively involved in impacting the issues they care about - from the county courthouse to the halls of Congress.

SOURCE


I wont list them all just one final piece regarding Christian Political arms in the USA

The number of organizations engaged in religious lobbying or religion-related advocacy in Washington, D.C., has increased roughly fivefold in the past four decades, from fewer than 40 in 1970 to more than 200 today. These groups collectively employ at least 1,000 people in the greater Washington area and spend at least $350 million a year on efforts to influence national public policy. As a whole, religious advocacy organizations work on about 300 policy issues. For most of the past century, religious advocacy groups in Washington focused mainly on domestic affairs. Today, however, roughly as many groups work only on international issues as work only on domestic issues, and nearly two-thirds of the groups work on both. These are among the key findings of a new study by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life that examines a total of 216 religion-related advocacy groups operating in the nation’s capital.

SOURCE

The last Source contains political arms from all religions not just Christianity

From the same source here is a chart showing the breakdown by religion

 

[ContraMundum]

SOURCE

SOURCE

I wont list them all just one final piece regarding Christian Political arms in the USA

SOURCE

Take this the right way: Care Factor Zero...and falling. I don't give a hoot about what some Americans think they are doing in the Name of Christ or whatever.

I said that Christianity has no VALID poltical arm. None exists in the NT nor are we commanded to form one. If private citizens self-identifying as Christians are concerned about their rights or whatever, then that's fine. That's democracy. It's allowed. But that's NOT formal Christianity.

 

[WoodrowX2]

Take this the right way: Care Factor Zero...and falling. I don't give a hoot about what some Americans think they are doing in the Name of Christ or whatever.

I said that Christianity has no VALID poltical arm. None exists in the NT nor are we commanded to form one. If private citizens self-identifying as Christians are concerned about their rights or whatever, then that's fine. That's democracy. It's allowed. But that's NOT formal Christianity.

I think you will find that they all believe they are doing it in the Name of Christ and are following formal Christianity. Just as strongly as you believe they aren't.

Perhaps very few people that call them self Christian actually are Christians. But to 2/3 of the world those are the people that show us what most "Christians" believe Christianity is.

If they are not Christians what is Christianity doing to correct this error and why don't Christians separate them self from those in error.

 

[ContraMundum]

I think you will find that they all believe they are doing it in the Name of Christ and are following formal Christianity. Just as strongly as you believe they aren't.

I don't think you get what I am saying. They would have to admit that Jesus never left His disciples with the command to form political parties, or "Christian" governments. The fact that they have occurred have happened from fallen human motives, not Biblical commands.

Perhaps very few people that call them self Christian actually are Christians. But to 2/3 of the world those are the people that show us what most "Christians" believe Christianity is.

The only "Christian" government of any impact was the old Holy Roman Empire, which was in the end neither Holy nor Roman. Sure, the Papacy made the fallacious claim to world civil leadership, but that ship got sunk in history eventually too. Even Protestant nations that formed "Established" Churches were really only hanging on to Medieval leftovers and most Christians in the West firmly believe in separation of Church and State- the Biblical model given us. While there are still some Established Churches, I don't think they have much gas left in the tank. The Free Church movement is way more vibrant and less infleunced by the world.

If they are not Christians what is Christianity doing to correct this error and why don't Christians separate them self from those in error.

Most Christians I know understand that Christianity is not a social or political movement, but a relationship with God. That doesn't mean that they surrender their democratic rights to make their concerns known. However, if there are people undermining the doctrine of separation of Church and State, then they are certainly in the wrong.

 

[WoodrowX2]

Most Christians I know understand that Christianity is not a social or political movement, but a relationship with God. That doesn't mean that they surrender their democratic rights to make their concerns known. However, if there are people undermining the doctrine of separation of Church and State, then they are certainly in the wrong.

Just addressing your last Paragraph.

I think that applies to most of us. We tend to find that those closest to us have very similar beliefs about our shared Faith.

But the reality is that often the majority does not.

Historically Christianity has been the head of Governments or appointed them,

Catholicism is still a strong political force in Catholic Majority Nations. It is also the largest Organization that has ever existed. It has only been in Recent times that the Church of England has lessened it's power over the British Monarchy.

Christianity is still the official State Religion in 7 Nations

 

[dlamberth]

But that's NOT formal Christianity.

That seems to be an in house debate among Christians because clearly others in your faith see things much differently and act accordingly. As an example, we often see FOX news leveraging off of that political arm of Christianity that you say doesn't exit in order to excite it's viewers to it's views. And look at how often we see guns, Jesus and the flag all draped together in a single political image.

I agree that Jesus is not political. But in the more fundamental trajectories of Christianity I don't get the same images as I do with Christ.

.

 

[Zoness]

A casual observation of American politics indicates quite clearly that Christianity in the United States either has a political arm or is an effective tool for a political arm. Christians may not want to associate with this but many of them do not seem to denounce it which implies tacit consent; the silent majority and all. If all Christians spoke up about and denounced it then people would think differently but it seems to me that most Christians implicitly are okay with the political faction representing them so the status quo carries on as expected.

 

[smaneck]

At the same time there is a very strong undercurrent of believers who are trying to make Christianity into a political force. And they are pretty loud about it..

I think there is at least some truth in what Contra Mundi is saying in that the primary goal of Christianity has been to save individuals from a world which is otherwise going to hell whereas the primary goal of Islam has been to transform the world through action in the world. Hence Christianity is individualistic oriented whereas Islam is more community oriented. Contra Mundi seems to see this community orientation as 'political.'

 

[ContraMundum]

Just addressing your last Paragraph.

I think that applies to most of us. We tend to find that those closest to us have very similar beliefs about our shared Faith.

But the reality is that often the majority does not.

Historically Christianity has been the head of Governments or appointed them,

Catholicism is still a strong political force in Catholic Majority Nations. It is also the largest Organization that has ever existed. It has only been in Recent times that the Church of England has lessened it's power over the British Monarchy.

Christianity is still the official State Religion in 7 Nations

Agreed. But it's not in the NT. That's the point. Even Catholicism has to go outside of the plain NT to establish an argument for temporal rule, and while they had/have no problem with that- it hasn't done much good int he long run. Sure, some say it has, but I don't buy into it.

 

[ContraMundum]

I think there is at least some truth in what Contra Mundi is saying in that the primary goal of Christianity has been to save individuals from a world which is otherwise going to hell whereas the primary goal of Islam has been to transform the world through action in the world. Hence Christianity is individualistic oriented whereas Islam is more community oriented. Contra Mundi seems to see this community orientation as 'political.'

OK..you get this. At least someone here does. Not sure I would throw out the "transform the world" emphasis from Christianity so quickly though, but I know what you mean I think.

I'm not an expert on Islam, and really don't want to be, but I'd like to be honest about it so that Woodrow and others know exactly where I'm coming from. To me, Islam's political teachings (the ones I know about) tend to be the seeds of Arab religious, political and cultural imperialism. Muslims are very political people. You can't seem to have a conversation with one without it getting into politics, race or some very foreign version of history. Many of them dress Arabic and adopt Arabic customs, they learn Arabic and they even say you can't pray of read the Quran properly without using Arabic. As a Malaysian Muslim told me just three days ago- the less Arabized the version of Islam the better. His words, not mine. The arguments Muslims have used against the West (that I have seen and heard) about imperialism, colonialism, capitalism, democracy, Coca Cola or whatever seem to fit fairly well on them as well.

So here's the point: when I read the NT, I DO see community, but I don't see a taxation system (esp one that is prejudiced) or military campaigns organised by the founder, nor do I see the mandated establishment of earthly powers. The community in the NT has a very different function and form to that of Islam or Baha'i (as far as I can tell)

 

[ContraMundum]

That seems to be an in house debate among Christians because clearly others in your faith see things much differently and act accordingly. As an example, we often see FOX news leveraging off of that political arm of Christianity that you say doesn't exit in order to excite it's viewers to it's views. And look at how often we see guns, Jesus and the flag all draped together in a single political image.

I agree that Jesus is not political. But in the more fundamental trajectories of Christianity I don't get the same images as I do with Christ.

.

A casual observation of American politics indicates quite clearly that Christianity in the United States either has a political arm or is an effective tool for a political arm. Christians may not want to associate with this but many of them do not seem to denounce it which implies tacit consent; the silent majority and all. If all Christians spoke up about and denounced it then people would think differently but it seems to me that most Christians implicitly are okay with the political faction representing them so the status quo carries on as expected.

Two things: The USA is not the only nation in the world. Christians there tend to be a bit of an enigma- the best stuff and the worst stuff comes from there. Secondly, while I realise that a proportion of Americans usually think they are never wrong when it comes to religion or politics, they often are. I'm patiently waiting for the day when Ripley's "Believe it or not" museum dedicates a section of its Hollywood location to this little discussed albeit shocking fact.

 

[WoodrowX2]

Agreed. But it's not in the NT. That's the point. Even Catholicism has to go outside of the plain NT to establish an argument for temporal rule, and while they had/have no problem with that- it hasn't done much good int he long run. Sure, some say it has, but I don't buy into it.

However Catholicism is over 1/2 of all the people who claim to be Christian. It is also what most non-Christian believe Christianity is.

Every Christian division is based upon Catholicism/Orthodox. the Koin Greek Bible is the essence of Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Without the Greek approval there would be no bible today.

When Reading the Bible, one is reading a translation of Orthodox Scripture.

 

[ContraMundum]

However Catholicism is over 1/2 of all the people who claim to be Christian. It is also what most non-Christian believe Christianity is.

Not seeing how that bears on the NT, actually. Catholicism may have some remaining political clout, but I've yet to find any passage in the NT that endorses all the political machinations of the Vatican.

Every Christian division is based upon Catholicism/Orthodox. the Koin Greek Bible is the essence of Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Without the Greek approval there would be no bible today.

When Reading the Bible, one is reading a translation of Orthodox Scripture.

?

Not sure what you are saying. Koine Greek was the language the NT was written in, yes. But I'm not sure what your point is.

 

[WoodrowX2]

Not sure what you are saying. Koine Greek was the language the NT was written in, yes. But I'm not sure what your point is.

Until the Great Schism there was the Greco-Roman Religion. The Book of scripture used by it was the Koin Greek Scriptures which eventual came to be called the Bible in English.

Today what is called Christianity is the Catholic and Greek Orthodox along with the splinter groups that derived from them.

In essence all of Christianity is either Catholicism or a variation of it. Even if all they copy is the Bible as the Bible was originally Roman/Greek Scripture.

 

[ContraMundum]

Until the Great Schism there was the Greco-Roman Religion. The Book of scripture used by it was the Koin Greek Scriptures which eventual came to be called the Bible in English.

There were, of course differing expressions of Christianity both within the larger "catholic" Church as well as in other parts of the world (Orient, India, even Britain) long before the Great Schism.

Today what is called Christianity is the Catholic and Greek Orthodox along with the splinter groups that derived from them.

In essence all of Christianity is either Catholicism or a variation of it. Even if all they copy is the Bible as the Bible was originally Roman/Greek Scripture.

I don't really agree, if I understand you correctly. The NT scriptures are written by Jews (with the exception of Luke's writings), in the language of the day (Greek) so they were more widely understood and don't really belong to one society or another, but belong to all those following them, regardless of language or culture. If you follow those writings, they are yours. It's also not necessarily accurate to say that all Christianity is based on Roman Catholicism, as Roman Catholicism is one tradition of many in the ancient Church. It became the dominant tradition in the West for a time, but that is no longer the case in many parts of the world.

 

[smaneck]

To me, Islam's political teachings (the ones I know about) tend to be the seeds of Arab religious, political and cultural imperialism. Muslims are very political people.

Here is the problem. There was more imperialism within Christendom than there was in the Islamic world. So how much sense does it make to blame that on Islam.

You can't seem to have a conversation with one without it getting into politics, race or some very foreign version of history.

And you want to keep these elements out although any historian would tell you they have played a crucial role in events.

Many of them dress Arabic and adopt Arabic customs, they learn Arabic and they even say you can't pray of read the Quran properly without using Arabic.

That's cultural not political.

As a Malaysian Muslim told me just three days ago- the less Arabized the version of Islam the better.

I would agree that is true in all areas but the Qur'an and the obligatory prayers. I would disagree with it in regards to the Qur'an because it is needs to be understood that a translation is not the same as the text itself. The fact that Christian lose sight of this when they read the Bible has caused all kinds of misunderstandings.

The arguments Muslims have used against the West (that I have seen and heard) about imperialism, colonialism, capitalism, democracy, Coca Cola or whatever seem to fit fairly well on them as well.

Let's look at your logic here. If Muslims engage in imperialism, it is the fault of their religion. But if a Muslim complains about Western and Christian imperialism that is the fault of their religion as well.

So here's the point: when I read the NT, I DO see community, but I don't see a taxation system (esp one that is prejudiced) or military campaigns organised by the founder, nor do I see the mandated establishment of earthly powers.

Given the fact that Christendom, unlike Islam, will not have any political power until long after the NT is compiled, this is what one would expect. However, the communities they formed were originally socialistic to the point of sharing all things in common according to Acts of the Apostles and being subject to a deadly divine curse if they didn't comply.

The community in the NT has a very different function and form to that of Islam or Baha'i (as far as I can tell)

The Baha'i Faith is a bit different than both because we do explicitly envision a New World Order on the one hand, and yet our religion prohibits the use of violence in any form to obtain it.

 

[ContraMundum]

Here is the problem. There was more imperialism within Christendom than there was in the Islamic world. So how much sense does it make to blame that on Islam.

Why is it that every point is answered "yeah, but Christians do it worse"? Not very productive.

That's cultural not political.

That's my point. Why do Muslims feel pressured to adopt Arab cultural practices?

I would agree that is true in all areas but the Qur'an and the obligatory prayers. I would disagree with it in regards to the Qur'an because it is needs to be understood that a translation is not the same as the text itself. The fact that Christian lose sight of this when they read the Bible has caused all kinds of misunderstandings.

Nah, not buying it. Even Sunday school kids know the Bible is best understood in the original languages.

Let's look at your logic here. If Muslims engage in imperialism, it is the fault of their religion. But if a Muslim complains about Western and Christian imperialism that is the fault of their religion as well.

Bingo. Exactly. It is the fault of their religion, as I understand it. Their religion has imperialism built into it. NT Christianity doesn't. That's how I understand it.

Secondly, if "Muslims" complain about Western Imperialism, that's fine. It's allowed and even good. No one is forcing them to use the benefits of it, and there's lots of talk in the West about trying to bring about reversing the ill effects as well.

The Baha'i Faith is a bit different than both because we do explicitly envision a New World Order on the one hand, and yet our religion prohibits the use of violence in any form to obtain it.

...a via media or sorts?

 

[smaneck]

Why is it that every point is answered "yeah, but Christians do it worse"? Not very productive.

Only because I believe Christians should remove the plank from their own eyes before they denounce other religions for their specks.

That's my point. Why do Muslims feel pressured to adopt Arab cultural practices?

Not all of them do, but the ones who do imagine they are following the example of the Prophet. Personally, I think they are missing the point. I think it is the moral example of the Prophet which is to be followed, not his cultural practices. Cleanliness is a virtue but just because the Prophet used a siwaq to clean his teeth shouldn't mean that Woodrow can't use a toothbrush.

Nah, not buying it. Even Sunday school kids know the Bible is best understood in the original languages.

LOL. Not where I live. I significant portion of the Christians who live here in the deep South see the King James Version as the inerrant Word of God.

Bingo. Exactly. It is the fault of their religion, as I understand it. Their religion has imperialism built into it. NT Christianity doesn't. That's how I understand it.

Except Islam doesn't have imperialism built into it. Muhammad took up arms to protect his community, not to conquer other peoples. But the Christians who launched the Voyages of Discovery leading to the conquest of America most saw their voyages as a continuation of the Crusades.

Secondly, if "Muslims" complain about Western Imperialism, that's fine. It's allowed and even good. No one is forcing them to use the benefits of it

There is no benefit to Western Imperialism. Western technology is an entirely different matter.

..a via media or sorts?

LOL. We've had media campaigns in a limited sort of way. Didn't prove all that effective.

"The sword of a virtuous character and upright conduct is sharper than blades of steel." Baha'u'llah

"Not by the force of numbers, not by the mere exposition of a set of new and noble principles, not by an organized campaign of teaching—no matter how worldwide and elaborate in its character—not even by the staunchness of our faith or the exaltation of our enthusiasm, can we ultimately hope to vindicate in the eyes of a critical and skeptical age the supreme claim of the Abhá Revelation. One thing and only one thing will unfailingly and alone secure the undoubted triumph of this sacred Cause, namely, the extent to which our own inner life and private character mirror forth in their manifold aspects the splendor of those eternal principles proclaimed by Bahá’u’lláh." Shoghi Effendi

There is a Baha'i scripture wherein Baha'u'llah states:

"Behold, O Dhabih, the works which God, the Sovereign Truth, hath wrought. Say thou: How great, how very great, is the power of His might that encompasseth all worlds! Exalted, immeasurably exalted, is His detachment above the reach and ken of the entire creation! Glorified, glorified be his meekness--a meekness that hath melted the hearts of them that have been brought nigh unto God!"

What is most striking about this passage, however, is the way in which it ties together contradictories. What is exalted about the works amal of the True One Haq is His detachment and meekness. And it is that power "which encompasseth all the worlds." The term translated as meekness here is mazulmatiya which denotes not simply humility but being wronged, of being innocent. The root word here, zulm denotes oppression, it is the opposite of 'adl or justice. Baha'u'llah makes the astounding assertion then that the Exaltation of God Himself lies in His having subjected Himself through the Manifestation to abasement, oppression and suffering. It is within this context that Baha'u'llah goes on to say: "Reflect a while, and consider how they who are the loved ones of God must conduct themselves, and to what heights they must soar." It is through the Manifestation that God Himself participates in the suffering of the oppressed and expects us to emulate Him in that participation.

"It behooveth, likewise, the loved ones of God to be forbearing towards their fellow-men, and to be so sanctified and detached from all things, and to entice such sincerity and fairness, that all the peoples of the earth may recognize them as the trustees of God amongst men."

 

[Zoness]

Two things: The USA is not the only nation in the world. Christians there tend to be a bit of an enigma- the best stuff and the worst stuff comes from there. Secondly, while I realise that a proportion of Americans usually think they are never wrong when it comes to religion or politics, they often are. I'm patiently waiting for the day when Ripley's "Believe it or not" museum dedicates a section of its Hollywood location to this little discussed albeit shocking fact.

I agree that American politics is wrong in general and that extends to the Christian arm of it. The reason that it is so important to hammer on it is that for all intents and purposes, the United States has a lot of impact world wide and domestically. Personally I need to be a diametrically opposed to philosophies that marginalize me as a minority culturally or otherwise. This isn't always a Christian problem, just a problem that happens to involve Christians, but it can often involve the self-righteous political wing that wields a lot of power.