RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Deep Topics The Politics of God

It means that an applied natural philosophy is key to either interpretation. The individual with the supposedly ideal philosophy could be religious, but that's not basically relevent.

More simply: Just replace the word "God" with "law" when you read the public exhibitions of the 10 Commandments and you'll get the gist of things.

I don't know about the politics of God, but it's pretty obvious from reading the New Testament what the politics of Jesus were- he was a hippy liberal! Suck it, G-Man!

I don't know about the politics of God, but it's pretty obvious from reading the New Testament what the politics of Jesus were- he was a hippy liberal! Suck it, G-Man!

While Jesus preached a very important message of social justice and directly opposed the religious establishment of the day, His message was totally incompatible with the self-centeredness that typifies postmodern liberals and conservatives alike. If you must have examples, according to Jesus, it's not the government's job to care for the poor and oppressed - it's ours as individuals. Jesus actually concerns Himself very little with the role of government, and went to great lengths not to identify His revolution as an earthly, political one. "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's..." Ring a bell? Couple verses after "Whoever has no sin cast the first stone", we get "Go, and leave your life of sin." I think that if He were physically here walking among us, Jesus would be truly saddened by the state of affairs in this country, but not terribly surprised. The self-appointed guardians of morality give little thought if any to the condition of those less fortunate, while the self-appointed seekers of justice live such morally bankrupt lives that for either one to claim to walk in the footsteps of Jesus Christ is an out-and-out sacrilege.

Fact is, it's impossible to understand the true message of the Old or New Testaments until we grasp the balance of personal morality and social justice that together make up what Jesus called righteousness. The one who cites Scripture to condemn an example of personal immorality yet overlooks a blatant abuse of the downtrodden is just as wrong as the one who invokes Jesus whenever it becomes necessary to stick it to the man yet gives absolutely no thought to the clear ethical guidelines coming from the mouth of the very same Jesus. We've had politicians of all stripes claiming God is on our side for most of the history of this country, yet in one direction or another they've almost all missed the truth completely. Until we are prepared not only to take on the divine mandate to seek and create justice in this world but also to ourselves live in a way that pleases the Almighty and not just the almighty self, we have no business claiming His purpose somehow aligns with our own. If anything, it should be the other way around, instead of trying to fit God into our own little political boxes.

While Jesus preached a very important message of social justice and directly opposed the religious establishment of the day, His message was totally incompatible with the self-centeredness that typifies postmodern liberals and conservatives alike. If you must have examples, according to Jesus, it's not the government's job to care for the poor and oppressed - it's ours as individuals. Jesus actually concerns Himself very little with the role of government, and went to great lengths not to identify His revolution as an earthly, political one. "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's..." Ring a bell? Couple verses after "Whoever has no sin cast the first stone", we get "Go, and leave your life of sin." I think that if He were physically here walking among us, Jesus would be truly saddened by the state of affairs in this country, but not terribly surprised. The self-appointed guardians of morality give little thought if any to the condition of those less fortunate, while the self-appointed seekers of justice live such morally bankrupt lives that for either one to claim to walk in the footsteps of Jesus Christ is an out-and-out sacrilege.

Fact is, it's impossible to understand the true message of the Old or New Testaments until we grasp the balance of personal morality and social justice that together make up what Jesus called righteousness. The one who cites Scripture to condemn an example of personal immorality yet overlooks a blatant abuse of the downtrodden is just as wrong as the one who invokes Jesus whenever it becomes necessary to stick it to the man yet gives absolutely no thought to the clear ethical guidelines coming from the mouth of the very same Jesus. We've had politicians of all stripes claiming God is on our side for most of the history of this country, yet in one direction or another they've almost all missed the truth completely. Until we are prepared not only to take on the divine mandate to seek and create justice in this world but also to ourselves live in a way that pleases the Almighty and not just the almighty self, we have no business claiming His purpose somehow aligns with our own. If anything, it should be the other way around, instead of trying to fit God into our own little political boxes.

You guys do realize that modern conservatism is the equivilant of pre-twentieth century liberalism yes?

Indeed. Heck, a hundred years ago, Republicans actually liked black citizens.

While Jesus preached a very important message of social justice and directly opposed the religious establishment of the day, His message was totally incompatible with the self-centeredness that typifies postmodern liberals and conservatives alike. If you must have examples, according to Jesus, it's not the government's job to care for the poor and oppressed - it's ours as individuals. Jesus actually concerns Himself very little with the role of government, and went to great lengths not to identify His revolution as an earthly, political one. "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's..." Ring a bell? Couple verses after "Whoever has no sin cast the first stone", we get "Go, and leave your life of sin." I think that if He were physically here walking among us, Jesus would be truly saddened by the state of affairs in this country, but not terribly surprised. The self-appointed guardians of morality give little thought if any to the condition of those less fortunate, while the self-appointed seekers of justice live such morally bankrupt lives that for either one to claim to walk in the footsteps of Jesus Christ is an out-and-out sacrilege.

Fact is, it's impossible to understand the true message of the Old or New Testaments until we grasp the balance of personal morality and social justice that together make up what Jesus called righteousness. The one who cites Scripture to condemn an example of personal immorality yet overlooks a blatant abuse of the downtrodden is just as wrong as the one who invokes Jesus whenever it becomes necessary to stick it to the man yet gives absolutely no thought to the clear ethical guidelines coming from the mouth of the very same Jesus. We've had politicians of all stripes claiming God is on our side for most of the history of this country, yet in one direction or another they've almost all missed the truth completely. Until we are prepared not only to take on the divine mandate to seek and create justice in this world but also to ourselves live in a way that pleases the Almighty and not just the almighty self, we have no business claiming His purpose somehow aligns with our own. If anything, it should be the other way around, instead of trying to fit God into our own little political boxes.

God doesn't "hates/d" homosexuals.

The prostate isn't actually inside the rectum either. Anyway, from a more utilitarian observation, it takes the edge off constipation. Calling it a "g-spot" is just stupid.

If god hated a homosexual ,the homosexual would know it. There would be so much more than words written in a book.

The Politics of God


Mark Lilla is professor of the humanities at Columbia University. He notes that, after centuries of strife, the West has learned to separate religion and politics — to establish the legitimacy of its leaders without referring to divine command.

However, Lilla argues, there is little reason to expect that the rest of the world — the Islamic world in particular — will follow.

Understanding this difference is the most urgent intellectual and political task of the present time. But where to begin? The case of contemporary Islam is on everyone’s mind, yet is so suffused with anger and ignorance as to be paralyzing. All we hear are alien sounds, motivating unspeakable acts. If we ever hope to crack the grammar and syntax of political theology, it seems we will have to begin with ourselves. The history of political theology in the West is an instructive story, and it did not end with the birth of modern science, or the Enlightenment, or the American and French Revolutions, or any other definitive historical moment. Political theology was a presence in Western intellectual life well into the 20th century, by which time it had shed the mind-set of the Middle Ages and found modern reasons for seeking political inspiration in the Bible. At first, this modern political theology expressed a seemingly enlightened outlook and was welcomed by those who wished liberal democracy well. But in the aftermath of the First World War it took an apocalyptic turn, and “new men” eager to embrace the future began generating theological justifications for the most repugnant — and godless — ideologies of the age, Nazism and Communism.

It is an unnerving tale, one that raises profound questions about the fragility of our modern outlook. Even the most stable and successful democracies, with the most high-minded and civilized believers, have proved vulnerable to political messianism and its theological justification. If we can understand how that was possible in the advanced West, if we can hear political theology speaking in a more recognizable tongue, represented by people in familiar dress with familiar names, perhaps then we can remind ourselves how the world looks from its perspective. This would be a small step toward measuring the challenge we face and deciding how to respond.