Christianity Today Poll | Christian Leaders and Politics

Should Christian leaders be more involved in influencing foreign policy?The latest Chritianity Today Poll asks Should Christian leaders be more involved in influencing foreign policy?the option ( and current %) areNot unless they have the training and experience of a foreign policy specialist.
27%
No, Christian leaders should stay out of politics.
18%
Yes, we need leaders who will apply Christian values to foreign policy.
50%
Yes, religious diplomacy is a great way to solve political problems.
5%Total Votes: 442Seems like they have fixed their little issue with multiple votes (Heh, it's nice to help) But still the Atheists out there should have their voice heard have funEdited by ohnhai, : changing settings to stop getting email alerts...

---

Tax-The-Church - Sign the petition
Darwin Day - Sign the Petition

the question here is really not "should politicians apply christians standards to foreign policy" but "which christians standards should be applied to foreign policy." if we feed all the hungry and clothe all the naked and protect all the weak and oppressed and welcome all the strangers within our gates, we are applying christian principles to foreign (and domestic) policy. but how many christians will consider these words when thinking about the israeli-palestinian conflict or sudan or wherever else? how many christians do you think would vote for open immigration because jesus requires it?

quote:

---

Mat 25:40-46 "The King will answer and say to them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, {even} the least {of them,} you did it to Me.'
"Then He will also say to those on His left, 'Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry, and you gave Me {nothing} to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink; I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.' "Then they themselves also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?' "Then He will answer them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.' "These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

---

There seems to be a deep and fundamental misunderstanding concerning your interpretation of this Scripture. This is saying that people who say they love Jesus should be doing things like feeding the hungry and visiting those in prison as an outworking of salvation. By not doing these things, it is evidence of a heart that either has never been in touch with Jesus or has lost touch with Jesus.I'm interested in knowing how you've come to an understanding that it has anything to do with foreign policy.

---

"God creates out of nothing. Wonderful you say. Yes, to be sure, but he does what is still more wonderful: he makes saints out of sinners." -Sren Kierkegaard

How is feeding the hungry, housing the poor, caring for the sick and a whole slew of other things not a part of foreign policy?Any interaction between two states is a matter of foreign policy.If we are a "christian" nation, then everything this nation does reflects on how well it carries out the commands of Jesus. If our "christian" nation does not help feed the hungry of other countries, doesn't that mean that our "christian" nation hasn't fed Jesus? We do a piss poor job of taking care of the hungry of other nations. Good thing we're not a "christian" nation, huh?

Because they are your brothers.The cost of the truly stupid War in Iraq is now approaching a half a trillion dollars. It is at over $455,746,000,000.00 and there is no end in site.Had we done the Christian thing as far as foreign policy was concerned, and invested say a BILLION dollars a year per nation in building infrastructure, providing food, health care, education, sanitation and digging water wells in Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Sudan, Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Yemen, Uganda and Afghanistan, we would have spent $10,000,000,000.00 and still have almost $450 Billion dollars left to help repair the damage we did by the embargo of Iraq.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

do you somehow think that there are only hungry people in this country?there is a parable that describes our neighbors as those people who live to the north of us who we hate and thing are evil and idolaters and so forth. do you really think that somehow jesus absolves us of caring for the people of the world because it doesn't serve our economic or millitary goals? if our neighbors are our enemies in the world, then our brothers must be everyone we don't particularly hate at this time.

My issue was that Brenna seemed to think that the scripture she posted was about foreign policy, as if Jesus framed it politically.But aside from that, I don't understand why you think it is the responsibility of American policy makers to feed and clothe every human being on planet earth rather than keeping the heads of nations responsible to their people.The US has fed and clothe many people of many nations to help them in times of crises. But the Native American adage give a man a fish, and eats for a day; teach him how to fish and eats for a lifetime, seems more in keeping with foreign policy.One of the biggest problems I've seen comes from those people who try and invent policies that save everyone. Sure, their heart is in the right place. But those who have tried to save the entire world through political policy have all ended up leaving it in a worse disposition than where they began.If you want to help people, you do it one person at a time through random acts of kindness. Yes, and so its a real shame that many people work feverishly to disrupt that.

---

"God creates out of nothing. Wonderful you say. Yes, to be sure, but he does what is still more wonderful: he makes saints out of sinners." -Sren Kierkegaard

I don't understand why some professing Christians separate their individual responsibilities from their corporate responsibilities.If it's wrong for a person to commit murder, isn't it also wrong for a mob to commit murder? Is only the one with bloody hands responsible or should all those present carry their share of responsibility?If it's right for a person to feed the hungry, why isn't it also right for a group of people to feed the hungry? If one person can help his neighbour clean out the gutters and a group of people can help their neighbour raise a barn, why shouldn't the group's elected government help a neighbouring country to improve its infrastructure?"Keeping the heads of nations responsible to their people" is the vilest kind of copout.It's like complaining that the neighbour's gutters overflow every time it rains instead of helping him prevent it. It's like complaining that the neighbour mistreats his animals instead of helping him shelter them. Feeding and clothing applies to "the least of these". As long as there is one hungry or naked person left, you haven't done enough. Jesus would disagree with you. He said, "Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel of full stomachs and warm clothing."Do it any way you can. If governments can do anything, they should. And Christians, above all others, should be pushing their governments to behave in a Christian way.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

no. the verse was meant that if you are a christian you will strive to feed every hungry mouth. it has political implications, i did nothing more than recognize that. that is a part of it. but, christian policy makers should feel that it is their duty to care for the needy. if other nations fail to care for their own, it is our responsibility to succeed. this does not include bombing said governments. but you don't follow native american religion, you follow jesus who said to feed the hungry. did the sermon on the mount result in a fishing lesson or an en masse donation of never-ending food? your problem is with poorly designed policy, not the intention. great intentions can create horrible policy. but it doesn't have to. it's not my fault or jesus' that idiots run the government. show me where the scripture says help one random person a day. jesus said feed the hungry. all of them. he said welcome and care for the stranger at your door. all of them. the problem is that so many work so hard to pass bullshit moralism while stalling and opposing real commands because "i don't want to support them welfare queens."

The only reason the US is left in Iraq is to build the infrastructure. They've built schools from the ground up only to be bombed. A similar problem is happening in Afghanistan.Similar amounts of money are being funneled in to support the insurgency via Iran, Syria, Pakistan, and possibly Jordan.What we are finding out is that you can't just throw money at the problem and expect the problem to go away. The problem is that you can't just change the Middle East overnight. Every administration that has tried has ended in failure.Carter tried. Reagan tried. Bush Sr tried. Clinton tried. And Bush Jr is trying. The same results seem to be surfacing.

---

"God creates out of nothing. Wonderful you say. Yes, to be sure, but he does what is still more wonderful: he makes saints out of sinners." -Sren Kierkegaard

I'm sorry but unless you can show where any of those people did what I outlined, "invested say a BILLION dollars a year per nation in building infrastructure, providing food, health care, education, sanitation and digging water wells in Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Sudan, Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Yemen, Uganda and Afghanistan" you cannot say that it failed. Further more, if you look at the list I provided you will not see Iraq listed. Uh, sorry but that is bullshit. That is not the only reason we are still in Iraq where we had no business going in the first place.

No, but apparently you believe that it is the sole duty of the United States to feed every man, woman, and child on the planet. No, of course not. We're supposed to love everyone, even our enemies. This is why we have missionaries. But you apparently are saying that the entire United States has to conform to whatever you have envisioned Christianity to be.Why do you say that foreign policy for America should mirror Jesus, but also be for the complete Separation of Church and State? That seems a bit paradoxical to me.if our neighbors are our enemies in the world, then our brothers must be everyone we don't particularly hate at this time.

---

"God creates out of nothing. Wonderful you say. Yes, to be sure, but he does what is still more wonderful: he makes saints out of sinners." -Sren Kierkegaard

Um, brenna isn't saying that our foreign policy should mirror jesus.She's pointing out what part of a "christian" foreign policy would look like.Besides, there's a difference between doing what Jesus told you to do and going around shoving your religion down other people's throats and prohibiting the excercise of other religions.So long as you leave the preaching and the "special place" (among various other things in the same vein) for your religion of choice it doesn't matter.No paradox, no contradiction even if she was advocating a Jesus based foreign policy, unless she decides to include the command to "spread the gospel" which would be a violation of the separation of church and state. Only then do you have a contradiction.

did i say that? i said that it a duty. it's your own fucking stupid issue that says that if i say something that must be the only thing i think. missionaries don't love people, they tell them about jesus. it's our job to love them. i was discussing the goals that christian politicians should be pursuing. stop talking, you're confusing yourself. this is a discussion of what christian politicians should be doing. try to keep up.

tell me what army soldiers can build other than bridges, tents, and stacks of bodies.the first thing our politicians did in iraq was disband their military leaving loads of unemployed, armed young men. the second thing they did was close down local factories and companies they viewed as "inefficient" (mainly because they would be better off buying american products, presumably). tell me what part of that supports the local economy and what part of destroying the local job market builds infrastructure?