Some questions for the OLO community:

For the stridently religous people:

1. Who would your major religious figure of choice vote for in the upcoming election? Would it be the same as you, and why would they vote that way?

2. Given said figures are meant to be omnipotent, would they even vote or would they just overthrow the corrupt democratic system and just establish a benevolent theocracy?

3. If they told everyone who they would vote for, would you still decided who to vote for yourself, or would you automatically just vote for whoever they decided to vote for, with all the ramifications either decision would entail?

For the stridently non-religious people..

4. If a new messiah appeared and stood for Prime Minister, would you vote for them if you agreed with them, or would you vote against on principal because you believe religion and politics should be separated?

5. How much convincing would you need to believe that a new messiah, was, in fact the messiah? Or would you vote for someone to lock them up given that this would be impossible, and said messiah would have to be an imposter?

6. Do you think there is any benefit at all to having a religious figure lead the country?

Just some thoughts for a friday...

gw

Hi gw.....

Well..given that Jesus said "My kingdom is not 'of' this world" I doubt He would 'vote' for any :)

But one thing is sure..the Biblical view on government is as follows:

"Give to Caesar that which is Caesars"

Its interesting to note that Jesus pointed to a "Denarius", a Roman coin. He asked "Who's image and who's inscription is on this" they replied "Caesars"...then he said those immortal words. "Render unto Caesar....."

The other important passage is in Romans 13:1

>>1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.<<

Paul wrote this during the reign of either Tiberious,Caligula or Claudius, none of whom were particularly favorable to the 'Christians'.



CONCLUSION. I therefore accept that we have a big part in who becomes Caesar... and in our democratic land we can choose. The interesting thing is... that whether Labor or Coalition are government.. or even a minor party.. it is still 'established by God'.......

We may also be sure of another thing... 'bad' governments eventually get replaced either by the voters or the revolutionaries.

So...I guess the Jesus I know, would accept the party I vote for.. if they win :) and the party you vote for...if your choice wins.

Jesus would vote for what he felt was good for humanity.( After all He was sent to earth to save humanity).

He would vote for the government that cared for the weak, for the aged, the poor,the environment,and for no wars.

He would not vote for a dishonest government or one that was for big business. After all he chased the money lenders (big business) from the temple...

He would also not support a government that alienated us from each other. He taught people to love their neighbours. Stressing that each person should treat others as he/she wished to be treated.

He would not support a government that imprisons people behind razor wire in some of the most hostile terrain on earth, in what, by any definition, are concentration camps, run by an American company specialising in top-security jails (profit: $387 million a year), where the refugees, in their desperation, resorted to suicide, starvation, arson, and mass escapes.

He would vote for a government that would bring about a new state of affairs ...

Foxy: "Jesus would vote for what he felt was good for humanity.( After all He was sent to earth to save humanity).

He would vote for the government that cared for the weak, for the aged, the poor,the environment,and for no wars."

Well said! Obviously, in the context of the forthcoming Australian Federal election, Jesus would vote for the Greens :)

Dear CJMorgan,

Yay! Yay! Yay!

FOXY... I studiously avoided being 'partisan' in my last post, but I'm afraid you did not take the same care. I note some very 'partisan' and party specific themes coming through.

Perhaps Jesus would also expect people to be honest in their attempt to flee from persecution rather than country shop ? :) see..there are always different perspectives on specific issues.. and most of those different perspectives are right some of the time at least.

My post could have applied as much to the Coalition as for Labor..and even for the (gulp...swallow..choke...cough.. strugggggle) the ..(almost can't say it) the greens.. now.. I'll be back after I wash my fingers and run my keyboard though the Autoclave...

BACK... the point is.. Jesus DID come to save.. and one of the things he came to save people from.. well actually its the ONLY thing. "SIN"...

And if you go through the 10 commandments, you will find that the chief of them is.. "you shall have no other Gods before me"

To do so...is sin, whether that 'god' is secularism.. humanism.. atheism.. or any.

So..I'll continue to refrain from trying to score points for any particular party by attaching the credibility of our Lord to it...(after all.. HE...knows the heart of ALL men on all sides of politics) and kindly suggest you have a listen to this rather uplifting experience from youtube. Its really quite inspiring.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3XJl9qSfv4

Perhaps if we all followed the advice of scripture "Looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith" (Heb 12:2) we would all be better people..and have better politicians...

cheers mate.

Dear BD,

The mission of Jesus was to announce that the Kingdom of God was coming, and that it had begun to arrive even as He announced it. He did this both in words and in actions, by His miracles and His teaching.

By the "Kingdom of God," Jesus meant a new state of affairs on earth, which God would bring about. In it all people would live as God's children.

If Jesus was to cast a vote today He would very definitely vote for a government that had moral standards of equality, responsibility, and care for the weak...

If I've stepped on your toes with my views - well, our convictions are just that - ours. You may not agree with them, but I'm entitled to express them - just as you feel entitled to express yours.

As I've stated once before - I've been given a conscience for a reason.

Foxy

You said 'If Jesus was to cast a vote today He would very definitely vote for a government that had moral standards of equality, responsibility, and care for the weak..."

Whose standards do you think the elected government should base its policies on? The Greens, the Democrates? Do you think Jesus would vote for a secular government which He knows will legislate policies against His standards which He has set out for people to follow? Do you think He will vote for a government which He knows will try to eliminate His name and influence from the country?

God has given us the system of being governed by a government, as to what kind of a government we choose to elect is up to us. That's why we need to use our brain to discern what's really behind the political parties slogan.

David thankyou for clarifying who we should vote for, re the U Tube message. Your inspiration comes from someone yelling adjectives at you in a bombardment that rises with a crescendo of even more superlatives. My inspiration is a lot quieter and thoughtful. I'm inspired by the beauty of learning all one can about how this beautiful world works. I have watched a small hornet take spiders into its nest to feed its evolving young. It was an epiphany for me to observe this wonder. When I vote I will vote for a person, not a 'Captain of Conquerers', or the 'Head of Heroes', or the 'Prince of Princes', but a person who can hopefully influence a new way of life and respect for Australian people. One day I hope I will be voting for a woman! Regards D

Foxy,

The Concept of The Kingdom of God breaks done to the limitations familialism and extends it the all Humankind on Earth. He also seems to breaks with Rites. Religion side, I would see him a secular humanist with penchant for small government. A left-wing libertarian?
I suspect if he was not an Essene, he broke with the Pharisees on there focus on the Law. Herein, the Law could relate most narrowly to Jewish rites. The broader concept of sin for all wrongdoing a later embellishment of the Church.

To bridge what could have been local Jewish [Faith] based rites to gloal jurisprudence is a tough call. He would have been more concerned about community than economic rationalism, I suspect. Maybe, something the Amish?

I firmly believe that people of diverse nations and faiths ought to be able to live in harmony. However,the gap between what ought to be and what actually is has been a recurring source of drama throughout human existence. The pursuit of peace will always be uphill.

And yet, I cannot accept the view that because our characters are flawed there is nothing we can do to improve the human condition.
Our inherent shortcomings notwithstanding, we can still hope to create a better future. And we know that the right kind of leadership
can do much to prevent wars, rebuild devastated societies, expand freedom, and assist the poor.

According to the poem by Yeats, it is when the best lack all conviction and the worst are full of passionate intensity that things fall apart, the center cannot hold, and anarchy is loosed upon the world.

We live in a time when the worst are indeed full of passionate intensity. The question is whether the rest of us have the courage of our convictions and the wisdom to make the right choices.

Wisdom comes from learning, which comes from education. The heart of education is the search for truth. But there are many kinds of truth.

If Jesus was to vote ... He would do so according to his gospel that demands "Do unto others as you would have done unto you." He would ensure that the strong did not oppress the weak. He would ensure that the government he chose would do good to man.

Who we chose - is up to us. But we have been given a conscience for a reason.

Jesus would love - The Greens.

">>1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.<<"

BD, I suspect this might have been one of those things slipped in by the Church at a later point to reinforce their god-given right to rule :)

That said, if it were not, its an interesting point taken in the context of Revelations (where's Gibo when you need him). If you indeed think that you need to follow the Romans quote above, then arguably you must also submit yourself to the final dictator, and take the mark of the beast, thereby damning yourself for eternity (supposedly).

Somehow, I feel that the earlier interpretation I made might be the more correct one :)

Foxy one...

If Jesus was to cast a vote today He would very definitely vote for a government that had moral standards of equality, responsibility, and care for the weak.

I have no argument with that mate... what I DO however argue with is the idea of 'weak' being attributed to people who do illegal or immoral things.. thats where I have a problem.

"Country Shoppers" in my view are immoral. If you HAVE safety and security... in country A....how can you expect people to be sympathetic when you deliberately abandon that safety and security simply to get a better economic opportunity in country B which is 3 countries further away ?

So.. such situations must be determined on a case by case and circumstantial basis. It's common sense. If our system is too weak..then amoral people will without doubt seek to exploit it.
Again...common sense.

I don't care who is in power.. they should follow 'common sense' :)

There are the genuinely weak...and the falsely weak seeking personal advantage. Governments must determine which is which.

Freedee..

glad you listened to that :) Actually.. it's simply a man exulting in the Glory of God..in Christ. He is searching for words to express his feeling... it's not a theological treatise its an outpouring of emotion. For me.. when I consider that it is said of Jesus

John 1:3

Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
4 In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the darkness.....

Well..I then look at that wasp and spider and my heart is filled with praise for the one who made it all.

Considering that the world of hornets/wasps and spidy's is a pretty rough one... (winner take all..surivival of the fittest) it is further gratifying that in conjunction with the 'creation' through the Lord Jesus, we also have 'light'... unfortunately, as John says:

....but the darkness has not understood it. (Which is the continuation of the above verse.)

It is that lack of understanding, ignoring of, or even outright rejection which is the source of our human problems.

Foxy is both right and wrong in my view.. in saying

"....that all people can live as God's children" I would qualify by adding "meaning those who have repented and embraced Christ as Savior and Lord"

You see.. just yesterday we heard of a Christian school in Pakistan, invaded by Jihadists, All the children were gathered into a hall by the staff as the Jihadi's entered the school grounds, the doors were shut.

The Jihadists came with Ak47s, Grenades, and a Beslan intent. They could not easily open the door of the hall, and eventually went away, (for reasons unknown) were confronted by government troops..and blew themselves up. The Children testified to hearing 'beautiful singing' while the Jihadists were at the door... (of angels? :)

It ain't all roses and brudderly luv out there

Hilarious to hear that Jesus would endorse the Greens. Of course you are joking! Just look at how many took an oath on the Word of God after being elected last time and you will get your answer on who to vote for.

James 5:12

"But above all, my brethren, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or with any other oath; but your yes is to be yes, and your no, no, so that you may not fall under judgment."

So if the greens don't take an oath on god then they appear to be on the money.

R0bert

"Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. " So BD, God obviously made the islamics and jihadists too, and we should celebrate their existence?? God has also made it possible for us to achieve genetic manipulation, so obviously we should rejoice at that as well?? God has made nuclear weapons possible, so I guess that means a cause for rejoicing too?? I could go on.

Robert

Oh I see it is okay for the Greens to want Australia to sign up to every secular ungodly UN agreement but it is not okay to make a pledge before God. Does not seem to add up.

From what I've read, Jesus was a pretty good bloke - but I'm sure he'd be very disappointed in the lies that his supporters promote in his name. For the benefit of those who'd like to cut through the bulldust, the actual Greens policies can be found here:

http://greens.org.au/election/policy.php

Funny, I couldn't find anything about "legislating policies against (Jesus') standards which He has set out for people to follow", or "wanting Australia to sign up to every secular ungodly UN agreement".

However, I did find some eminently sensible and well thought out policies about Environment, Agriculture & Natural Resources, Climate Change and Energy, Caring for People, Human Rights & Democracy, Media, Arts & Science, and Sustainable Economy. In fact, I'm even more convinced that a good like Jesus would be a Greens supporter of he was around today :)

runner, "Just look at how many took an oath on the Word of God after being elected last time and you will get your answer on who to vote for." - no mention of foreign treaties in that post.

Rather if I've understood your point correctly you are suggesting that behavior which coincides with a clear instruction from the bible is a reason not to vote for the greens.

I'm assuming that the greens mostly don't take that oath on the bible and members of the coalition mostly do - please tell me if I have that back the front.

R0bert

"By the 'Kingdom of God,' Jesus meant a new state of affairs on earth, which God would bring about. In it all people would live as God's children. - Foxy

Divine or not divine, the entity Jesus' cenral mission was the Kingdom of God, as you state, on Earth. What the Church teaches comes after three centries of Chinese whispers and three of regions [Galalilee, N. Syria, S. Syria and Asia Minor]. Preacher or God at Church , Christians are taught Jesus' funamental thurst. The teachings between 325-800 CE, were to vote [bu the leaders] for standardisation and unification. The Church of the early nine century wished to establish its origins to Augustus not St. Peter. The sring of Popes thing came later. Besides teh first 15{?] Popes/Bishops were Jewish.

[away for a while]

Many of the values which underpin our political traditions have roots that are consistent with Christian values, but the ways we try to work those values out in political ideologies reflect all too clearly the pitfalls of human fallibility.

I suspect that Jesus would share the left’s core values of solidarity with, and compassion for, the poor and marginalised, but disapprove of their tendency to naïve idealism, materialism and resort to state power to impose their model of society on others.

He would share liberals’ core values of respect for the unique value and dignity of the individual, but not their tendency to egotism, consumerism and the under-valuing of society.

He would share greens’ concern with creation and misuse of the earth’s resources, but not their judgementalism and tendency (at the radical fringe) to misanthropy.

He would share conservatives’ respect for an inherited living tradition and suspicion of political ideologies, but not their reluctance to change and complacency with the status quo.

He would probably be very amused at anyone who tried to use His name to bolster their own political agendas, whether on the right or left

Rhian

That's a pretty shrewd and well-balanced assessment.

But you've left out one big group in the current Australian political landscape. What would Jesus have said about the economic rationalists who dominate the Coalition Government (and their back-room benefactors/beneficiaries)?

These are not liberal in the sense you mean nor are they socially conservative in the sense you mean. Yet they often use Christianity as either a cover for their real purpose or as a (spurious) justification for their position.

FrankGol

The phrase “economic rationalist” as currently used originated with Pusey, who didn't define it clearly. It's a label used more often in disapproval than approval, so the “economic rationalism” of its proponents and opponents are different, and both use loaded terms in their definitions.

John Hyde’s definition is:

“Economic rationalists contend that governments should develop the institutions that make markets work better, avoid unnecessary substitution of their own judgements for those of buyers and sellers, and govern without favour.”

Pusey’s definition is:
“A doctrine that says that markets and prices are the only reliable means of setting a value on anything.”

This gulf between the definition of proponents and opponents was drawn out well in the study “Economics Through the Looking Glass: ‘Economic Rationalism’ as Seen by Public Figures” By Malcolm Anderson and Michael Harris, (IAESR Working Paper 6/96), which grouped opinions into the categories of “hawks” and “doves.”

Self-described “hawks” characterised what they believed as:

- Finding the lowest cost means to an end or social goal

- Concerned with policies that actually work, rather than sounding a nice idea

- Belief that free markets reduce rent seeking

In contrasts, doves characterised hawks’ views as:

- Government intervention is always detrimental to economic performance

- Competition is better than co-operation

- A preference for more efficient over more equitable outcomes

- An unswerving commitment to free markets, privatisation, deregulation and lower government spending

None of these definitions was accepted by a majority of self-described hawks.

So a picture of good intentions disrupted by dogma and self-interest could also apply for economic rationalism.

Self-described economic rationalists see their ideas as little more than sound stewardship, focussing particularly on responsible and prudent management of others’ resources, an idea with lots of authentic biblical resonance. But they may underestimate the extent to which their understanding of the benefits of competition, the effectiveness of certain social and economic policies, and the likelihood and seriousness of government failure are ideologically not empirically based, and the insufficiency of economic tools to evaluate some social goals and policies.

I reckon Jesus would have voted with the doves :)

Jesus has voted already but few follow his teachings. Least of all the Greens who despise his prayer and want it banned in opening Parliament. He has already formed a Christian Party that represents his value of all life.

The thing is Biblical history demonstrates that we get the government that reflects the nations moral attitudes. The further they move from his teaching the more they make themselves prone to destruction. The Bible calls it judgment day. Israel found themselves overtaken by Assyria, Babylon, Greece, Rome. All nations that enforced beliefs and practises upon them they totally abhorred. The nation that forgets God will self destruct or be overtaken by a greater power.

RHIAN....I was so blessed by your 2nd last post.. you captured the essense of the issue very well..and FRANKGOL even agreed :)

See Frank.. we are really not that far apart page wise.

The points made by Rhian, demonstrate how human fallability creeps into all political movements. Thats why I will criticize anyone who claims Jesus for 'their' side of a multi sided political battle.

We might be able to show that 'some' aspects of a particular party are more 'Biblical' than another parties, but then..that other party may well have different points which are more Biblical than some of the other mobs also.

That's why I say Jesus would not be in the voting game he is in the repentance/faith/forgiveness 'business'... renewing people from within... rather than subscribing to a particular political system.

I'm sure that if Kev Rudd and John Howard both went in to see Jesus for 'confession' they would both have plenty to pour out :)
as would we all.