For Jehovah, we’re all equally damnable, only redeemed through Christ and not through any of our works at all.
Salvation is a free gift.
You only have to accept or reject it.
He did not marry. He could have. Perhaps he did not want to leave behind a grieving wife & kids? He was solely focused on his ministry and building relationships with his disciples (males & females). Like Paul in his ministry with the churches. He did not forbid marriage, but advised against it unless already married at the time of conversion, or … burning with desire, and able to find a Christian spouse.
I agree we are saved by the free gift of grace through faith, not works. However, we are only held accountable for how we respond to the light we’ve been given. If we have received his forgiveness and love, we will extend it to others in a very evident way.
Okay, it seems he confronted Jewish politicians, but from a political standpoint, or a spiritual one?
Did he want to change the government?
Or just point out the ruling class were no better than anyone else, that they too ought to relinquish their wealth, power and prestige?
Jehovah permits crocodiles and lions to have power too, but does that mean the Christian should emulate their behavior?
Jesus appears to have advocated all men give up their wealth, power, prestige and become lowly pacifists and communists, but of their own freewill, he allows men and mankind to retain and seek power if that’s what they desire.
Review the original post and my first reply. See my thread “Good News of the Kingdom” for Jesus’ words.
To me, Christianity is egalitarianism, an egalitarianism even greater than say Marxism.
In Marxism, property is to be shared equally (from each according to their ability to each according to their need).
In Christianity, property is to be shared equally, and righteousness too.
Without Christ, we’re all equally damned, within Christ, we’re all equally saved, and so no one wrongs God and mankind more than anyone else, and so no one has the right to judge or punish, judgement and punishment belong solely to Jehovah, and he has chosen to forego them, for according to the bible, it was the only way man could be salvaged, he was so destitute.
And so Christians oughtn’t resist government (organized judgement-punishment (sin), nor govern (sin).
Jehovah allows man to govern (sin), and makes some use of government (sin), but urges man not to govern (sin).
I got the opportunity to study a smidge Marx. Unfortunately it seems like he kind of got stuck at state ownership of property, which can be exploited to result in the sort of universal slavery it took an act of God to rescue the Hebrews out of. We are told not to return to that.
When we are all ruled by the Golden rule because we all receive God‘s love and forgiveness and extend it, there will be very little need of government. At least not over our own citizens. But that sort of thing spreads from the ground up, and cannot be enforced from the top down, and does not come by a violent revolution. Well. Unless God has to do another rescue plan … but. It’s not favorable for those who favor the universal slavery stage. Millstone & what not.
The forgiveness Jesus demonstrated in his sacrifice is not a magic trick. It is a demonstration of eternal love despite circumstances (good or bad). That’s why it’s all over the law & the prophets. It was done the way an artist communicates. In his own blood.
We are not obligated to obey when it violates the golden rule. We are commended and blessed when we disobey in that case. And sometimes he is behind the jail break.
Folks need to … reassess.
Right, Marxism is a form of political communism, Christianity a form of unpolitical communism.
And Marxism is an involuntary communism, Christianity is a voluntary communism.
We can and should participate in the transcultural political process, which should absolutely not involve state ownership of property. Again… review original post & first reply.
In any case, why do you believe Christianity is most compatible with John Rawls’ social liberalism, why not Robert Nozick’s classical liberalism, or the far left’s authoritarian socialism?
Why not Catholicism’s distributism?
Is their something uniquely Christian about social democracy?
Or is social democracy just the best system, in your estimation?
I located my unfinished, unpolished political philosophy final that is in dire need of revision. If you had actually engaged and correctly represented what I have presented to you so far I might risk embarrassing myself by sharing it with you. However we are not in those circumstances, are we?
…I’ll let myself out…
Sorry. I need the ocean. I’ll work on it tomorrow.
No worries mate, admittedly I didn’t do your thread justice, particularly with the last few posts I made, you already gave a few reasons why you prefer what we may refer to as a social market economy and you cited the bible, I overlooked that.
I was also quite dismissive about the idea of Christian politics in general, but I’m starting to kind of see things your way now, the bible does say governments carry out Jehovah’s will and distribute justice.
The bible does urge Christians to live a life of pacifism, voluntary poverty and communalism, if we all practiced that, government would be impossible, but because many aren’t willing or able to practice that, including millions of Christians, government is possible, and so it makes sense for Christians to foster Christianism (Christian theocracy), either that or what you refer to as a transcultural form of government.
Nope. I’ll just keep it to myself since you’ll just warp it.
You thought right, except I’m not warping it, it does that by itself.
In one breath, the bible says: God forgives man and man should forgive man, in another it says: God uses government (men) to punish man.
Romans 13:
Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.
I guess God uses governments like Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union to administer justice too?
You shall know them by their fruit.
So if we want to know God and his relationship with us, study the aforementioned governments.
This is a separate issue.
It takes omniscient discernment to know whether a thing is (before/after ALL is said/done) good/positive/discipline, or bad/negative/judgment.
What can we who lack omniscience do?
Count it all joy 
The Lord disciplines those he loves (despite their crap - good or evil).
Next?
Bit more:
Though graded absolutism is usually associated with Christian philosopher Norman Geisler [2], some [1] argue there is no Biblical basis for it. Norman Geisler responds in “Introduction to Philosophy: A Christian Perspective” [3] that the Bible has many examples of God approving rather than condemning instances when people acknowledged the higher over the lower, like when God blessed and gave families to the Hebrew midwives who “disobeyed government and lied to the king (Exodus 1:19) in order to save the male babies,” (p. 417). He points out that “Jesus spoke of ‘greater sin’ (John 19:11), ‘greater love’ (John 15:13), ‘greatest commandment’ (Matt 5:19), and ‘weightier matters’ of the law (Matt. 23:23),” (ibid, p. 424). He asserts killing in self defense (Exodus 22:2), capital punishment (Gen. 9:6), and in a just war against aggression (Gen. 14) were all greater goods (ibid, p. 418).
ichthus77.com/2011/07/21/my-fir … bsolutism/
Graded absolutism means we obey as long as THEY have their priorities straight. We are not obligated to tell the truth (lower) to a would-be killer. We are obligated to save life (higher) in that case. One of the huge problems with most legal systems is that our priorities are all wonky. An unjust law is no law at all. But if just (higher & lower in right place) - we are obligated to obey.
See my second reply for the golden rule being the keynote that helps determine higher from lower.
If none of this describes anything real, scrap it. (Psst… it describes I AM).