Originally posted by RJHinds He may be referring to 1 Timothy 2
First of all, then, [b]I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who ...[text shortened]... ve Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time.
(1Timothy 2:1-6 NASB)[/b]
maybe, but it does state why we are to pray for them, in the verse, it would be strange
of him to ask me why when the verse is rather clear on the matter.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie I dont vote because I believe the Bible teaches us to be politically neutral, , its nothing to do with tyranny or democracy or anything else.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie maybe, but it does state why we are to pray for them, in the verse, it would be strange
of him to ask me why when the verse is rather clear on the matter.
Your interpretation is like seeing a person in need of food and clothing and just praying that he will get it, when you have the means to help him yourself. This is the kind of misguided attitude that James was talking about.
If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,” and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that?
(James 2:15-16 NASB)
P.S. If you are not willing to do anything to make the government better, you don't deserve a better government to serve you. I have already told you that praying does not work by making you lazy.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie I dont vote because I believe the Bible teaches us to be politically neutral, , its nothing to do with tyranny or democracy or anything else.
But it must mean that you believe God does not want people to vote and does not want us to live in a participatory democracy preferentially to any other form of civil governance. How can we conclude otherwise?
I assume you believe in the model exemplified by the structure of your religion -- although obviously you don't advocate that it be used in civil government because advocating that would be politically non-neutral.
It seems to me your structure is a form of private group government by consensus with a "constitution" and a "law-making body" and an "executive" and a "judiciary" of sorts, and membership is voluntary (although there are psychological and social penalties for rebellion). So "consent of the governed" is, at least to some extent, present in that governmental system, and you "vote" for it every time you go along with what's going on. But it's not civil government so that kind of "voting" is OK.
Like I said, it does not bother me if you and few million like-minded people don't vote in civil elections. I just want to understand.
Originally posted by RJHinds P.S. If you are not willing to do anything to make the government better, you don't deserve a better government to serve you. I have already told you that praying does not work by making you lazy.
Conservatives don't believe the government should serve anyone anyways. They think private enterprise can do it better... for a price.
Originally posted by JS357 But it must mean that you believe God does not want people to vote and does not want us to live in a participatory democracy preferentially to any other form of civil governance. How can we conclude otherwise?
I assume you believe in the model exemplified by the structure of your religion -- although obviously you don't advocate that it be used in civil go n like-minded people don't vote in civil elections. I just want to understand.
Originally posted by RJHinds Weird interpretation, especially, since voting or being neutral in politics or government is not mentioned at all in those verses in the Holy Bible.
they are principles, the bible doesn't mention dropping atomic bombs but clearly its hardly showing love for one neighbour.
Originally posted by Suzianne Conservatives don't believe the government should serve anyone anyways. They think private enterprise can do it better... for a price.
I am a conservative and believe there is a role for government and one for private enterprise. The main difference between liberals and conservatives concerning the economy is as follows:
Liberal
A market system in which government regulates the economy is best. Government must protect citizens from the greed of big business. Unlike the private sector, the government is motivated by public interest. Government regulation in all areas of the economy is needed to level the playing field.
Conservative
The free market system, competitive capitalism, and private enterprise create the greatest opportunity and the highest standard of living for all. Free markets produce more economic growth, more jobs and higher standards of living than those systems burdened by excessive government regulation.
I did (skimming a bit). I failed to see how any two JWs, having a correct understanding of their faith, can come to opposite conclusions from one another on whether to vote and participate in civil government and politics.
Originally posted by Suzianne How about taking an exam on "US Government 101" before being allowed to register to vote?
How about chucking the whole democratic thing and just elect government officials with a lottery? At least that way a few weeks can go by before they are totally in the pockets of the powers behind the scene.
A lottery would put people of both genders, all ages, all levels of intelligence and experience in together.
My bet is they would do just as good a job of running the country as the bought out officials we have now.
One example: Bush Jr, on his run to the presidency, had a fund raiser composed of rich oil executives. In it he said, and I quote: 'There are the haves, and the haves more. YOU ARE MY BASE!'. Unquote. Kind of easy to see what he was all about.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie he is not making himself a forum moderator he is simply demonstrating that i have
already stated my position, time and again, with reference. Try reading his link and
educate yourself.
I think as PK pointed out earlier, you have crashed-and-burned in this thread; you know it too.
Originally posted by FMF I realize you're just letting off steam, but - running with it anyway - what happens if the bureaucratic mechanism, set up to criminalize stupid people who attempt vote, designates you as stupid and adds you to the list of "millions upon millions"?
There's the rub. Making it illegal for ignorant citizens to vote is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
It's a real shame that the vote of an ignorant voter has the exact same value as that of one that is informed. I secretly wish that in order to vote, one should have to pass a simple test -- but that's a slippery slope that would end up with a situation like you described.
I don't see a plausible solution. Maybe raising the voting age to something like 25 would somehow raise the median awareness level of the voters, but, that idea has drawbacks as well.
Originally posted by sumydid There's the rub. Making it illegal for ignorant citizens to vote is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
It's a real shame that the vote of an ignorant voter has the exact same value as that of one that is informed. I secretly wish that in order to vote, one should have to pass a simple test -- but that's a slippery slope that would end up with a s ...[text shortened]... omehow raise the median awareness level of the voters, but, that idea has drawbacks as well.
"I don't see a plausible solution."
There is none. We rise or fall on the intelligence of the people. Us, that is. As you suggest, filtering mechanisms as to who may vote, are subject to manipulation. But casting the dice on the governed seems to be better than any other option, since it stands some chance of being self corrective, with sometimes, some real pain.
Originally posted by sonhouse How about chucking the whole democratic thing and just elect government officials with a lottery? At least that way a few weeks can go by before they are totally in the pockets of the powers behind the scene.
A lottery would put people of both genders, all ages, all levels of intelligence and experience in together.
My bet is they would do just as go es, and the haves more. YOU ARE MY BASE!'. Unquote. Kind of easy to see what he was all about.
So then we could get off the JW's backs about not voting. No one would be voting. Sounds dumb, but fair. Hip, hip. hooray for the lottery!
voting christans
31 Oct '12 23:11
Back to Top