Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

re Note 1200.0 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

> For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and
> the �government� shall be upon his �shoulder:� and his name shall
> be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The
> everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
  
> What do you understand this phrase to mean?
  
        That someday Jesus will take upon his shoulders all the
        taunts, indignities, hate, and violence that is currently
        being visited on government workers.

        Bob

    Re .1
    
    What "taunts, indignities, hate, and violence" are you referring to?
    

re Note 1200.2 by CNTROL::DGAUTHIER:

>     What "taunts, indignities, hate, and violence" are you referring to?
  
        You're not in the U.S., are you?

        Bob

Bob,

That was a rather clever answer, but cannot under any stretch of the
imagination be seen as a legitimate interpretation of the citation.

However, you are correct that Jesus takes upon himself all taunts,
indignities, threats, and violence, and not just that against gummint
workers but against every human who has ever lived.

That, after all, is the basic Christian theology of why he died on
the Holy and Livegiving Cross.

/john

    RE .3
    
    >You're not in the U.S., are you?
    
    Yes I am.  I don't consider the plight of the government workers to be
    "taunts, indignities, hate, and violence".  It's risky working for any
    employer, much less one running in the red which lacks a clear and 
    decisive mechanism for apprporiating funds to pay it's employees.  It's 
    a risk they took when they took the job.  I feel bad for these people, 
    but I see nothing "violent or hateful" about what's happened to them.  
    I will say that it's unfair to ask some of these employees to work 
    without pay (unfair and illegal).  But as for the others, well, I'd 
    stop crying and look for another employer.  

re Note 1200.5 by CNTROL::DGAUTHIER:

>     I feel bad for these people, 
>     but I see nothing "violent or hateful" about what's happened to them.  
  
        Does the date "April 19" sound familiar?

        Bob

    >Does the date "April 19" sound familiar?
    
    No. Enlighten me.

    The passage in the base note is actually a dual prophecy.  Similar to
    Isaiah 7:14 about the child being born of a virgin.  The beginning of
    the passage addresses Jesus' first coming, a child being born and a son
    being given.  The second part of the passage addresses His rule at the
    second coming.  He has yet to be called King of Kings by the
    governments of the world but the day will come when this will happen.
    
    -Jack

    Bob:
    
    Yes, isn't it horrible what our president is doing by not signing the
    budget.  What a mean spirited individual he is!
    
    -Jack

re .8

Jack,

Prophecies such as in Psalms 2, Daniel 2:44, Revelation 17:12-14
and 19:11,16,19 seem to indicate that governments of the world 
will not acknowledge his authority but will oppose and war against 
the Lamb.

Take for example Revelation 19:19 NWT "I saw the wild beast and the 
kings of the earth and their armies gathered together to wage the
war with the one seated on the horse and his army"

And Psalms 2:2,5,6,9 NWT "The kings of the earth take their stand
and high officials themselves have massed together as one against 
Jehovah and against his anointed one. At that time he will speak
to them in his anger and in his hot displeasure he will disturb
them, saying : 'I even I, have installed my king upon Zion, my
holy mountain.' You will break them with an iron sceptor, as 
though a potter's vessel you will dash them to the pieces."

Jack, do you actually believe that the governments of the world
will give up their so-called right to rule themselves?. Will
the majority of persons allow them to do so? Bible prophecy
indicates that all governments will be manouevred in opposition
to the Lamb along with their subjects.

For this reason Jesus told his followers to be no part of the world,
which includes politics. 

Phil. 

| <<< Note 1200.9 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>

| Yes, isn't it horrible what our president is doing by not signing the
| budget.  What a mean spirited individual he is!

	Jack, signing a budget for the sake of signing a budget is stupid, to
say the least. Signing a budget that he feels is best for America, is what he
should do. Stand by his convictions. 

	Of course we all know that even by standing by his convictions, the
budget might not be perfect, but with what the repubs want to do, I believe the
President is correct in not signing onto their plan. 



Glen

 Z   Jack, signing a budget for the sake of signing a budget is stupid, to
 Z   say the least. Signing a budget that he feels is best for America, is
 Z   what he should do. Stand by his convictions. 
    
    Yes, it is stupid Glen.  The president's budget does not meet the seven
    year objective that he promised.  Therefore, it would seem since Reagan
    has been denounced by the democrat party for running up a debt, we
    should all be rallying behind congress in this matter.  I believe it is
    very prudent for the congress to make him stand by what he promised,
    because as we all know Glen, it isn't right to tell a lie...RIGHT??? 
    
    -Jack

    Phil:
    
    I agree that in the current condition of man, the pride would get in
    the way of acquiescing to the lamb.  As clearly displayed in the bowl
    judgements, the heart of man did not repent and they blasphemed God.
    
    I believe the prophecy of Isaiah 9:6 takes place in the 1000 year
    millineal reign, a time when there will be total peace.  This is when
    he will be called the Prince of Peace!  
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 1200.12 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>


| The president's budget does not meet the seven year objective that he 
| promised.  

	Since when? I admit to not watching too much news lately, but last I
heard, his did meet the 7 years, and it was this way for quite some time now.
It was not the way the repubs want it to be, as is theirs to Clinton. But I did
remember a 7 year budget. 

| Therefore, it would seem since Reagan has been denounced by the democrat party
| for running up a debt, we should all be rallying behind congress in this 
| matter.  

	Where you get your logic from is becoming one of the 8th wonders of the
world. 

| I believe it is very prudent for the congress to make him stand by what he 
| promised, because as we all know Glen, it isn't right to tell a lie...RIGHT???

	Again, when did he CHANGE it to not meet the 7 years? 


Glen

>For this reason Jesus told his followers to be no part of the world,
>which includes politics. 

>Phil. 
    
    Hi Phil,
    
    Where did Jesus say what you attribute to him?
    
    jeff

    Jesus did in fact teach the concept of seperation; however, he said
    nothing about not being civic minded.  Unfortunately, we are so
    intertwined with politics we cannot seperate ourselves from it.  We are
    a part of a republic and as such, we have representation, we pay taxes,
    and the taxes are used to implement laws and policy.  For one to truly
    renounce politics, one would have to renounce their citizenship, move
    to an island and live by yourself.
    
    -Jack

.8

>    The passage in the base note is actually a dual prophecy.  Similar to
>    Isaiah 7:14 about the child being born of a virgin.  The beginning of
>    the passage addresses Jesus' first coming, a child being born and a son
>    being given.  The second part of the passage addresses His rule at the
>    second coming.  He has yet to be called King of Kings by the
>    governments of the world but the day will come when this will happen.

I question the legitimacy of such a convenient split.

Shalom,
Richard

    Having an unbalanced budget is irresponsible.  Seven years out is seven
    years too late.  The dammed thing should have been balanced last year. 
    It should NEVER have been unbalanced.  The price of overcompensating
    the needy today means unfairly burdening the generations to come.  And
    THAT is at least as imoral as denying the needy of the day.
    
    I know that the Native Americans weren't christian, and that their
    beliefs and practices are regarded as inferior because of that, but 
    they used to make decisions based on what's best for the living 
    generation AND THE NEXT SEVEN TO COME!  That's why they didn't rape
    the land, use their rivers like sewers and overhunt the range.  They 
    weren't so selfish as to focus only on themselves, for today.  Maybe we 
    could learn from them.  
    
    Didn't Jesus have something to say about taking care of one's children?
    Didn't he have something to say about failing in that regard?
    
    -dave

    .18
    
    Excuse me - *who* regards the beliefs and practices of the Native
    Americans as inferior?
    
    D.

    Dorian:
    
    It is no secret that the white man of the past and many of the present
    considered the practices of Native Americans to be inferior.  The
    prejudice exists today, let's not kid ourselves.
    
    As far as raping our natural resources, there are currently more trees
    in our country today than there were in the late 1800's.  No question
    we were on the road to perdition in regard to pollution but I see the
    trend changing for the better.
    
    As far as deficit spending being irresponsible, our economy today is
    based upon using other peoples money.  A majority of homeowners,
    businesses, farmers, etc. operate on deficit economics.  A savings bond
    is based on government debt.  A promisory note to borrow now and pay
    more later.  It is when deficit economics pays for things which don't
    yield a return...that's when it is irresponsible.
    
    -Jack

    Richard:
    
    Isaiah 9:6 is speaking of Jesus...do we agree on this?
    
    If so, then the first part of the verse is speaking of a baby, so we
    know that Jesus was born of Mary and was a baby.  But in Jesus' first
    coming, he was not a ruler.  Jesus came as one to suffer for the sins
    of many, a sacrificial lamb.  Jesus will one day rule!
    
    -Jack

    RE .19
    
    >*who* regards the beliefs and practices of the Native Americans as 
    >inferior?
    
    I don't. In fact, I hold their beliefs and practices in very high
    regard.  I especially like the simple and humble themes of their 
    religion.  But Jack is right, the prejudices are still present. 
    We misinterpret the culture because we're ignorant of the
    perspective.  Pitiful as it may seem, some dismiss Native Americans
    as animal worshipers.  That's about as true as saying Catholics worship
    clay statues.
    
    Re .20
    
    >there are currently more trees
    >in our country today than there were in the late 1800's.
    
    Only because railroads made farming in the midwest more econimically 
    attractive.  It certainly was not provoked by any movement to preserve
    the forests.
    
    >I see the trend changing for the better  
    
    So do I, but it's sloooooooow and very difficult to keep the greedy at
    bay.  It's also the type of thing which you only see in times of
    prosperity (when you can afford to do it).  Globally, the trend is
    worsening.
    
    
    -dave

    The big problem is the elimination of the Rain Forests in Brazil.
    
    -Jack

	Huh?

re .15

Hi Jeff,

The Scripture is John 17:16 which reads "They are no part
of the world, just as I am no part of the world." NWT

Now obviously "the world" encompasses many different things
such as it's spirit. Jesus' followers would understand 
his meaning because they would need to follow his example. 
There are a couple of Scriptures that show Jesus declined to
accept political office, Matthew 4:8-10 and John 6:15 NWT
which reads "Therefore Jesus, knowing they were about to
come and sieze him to make him king, withdrew again into
the mountain all alone." No doubt, the local inhabitants 
thought that Jesus would make an excellent king but he
shirked this, for his kingdom is no part of this world.

How did early Christians follow Jesus' example ? (compare 
1 Peter 2:21). You may find the following comments from
historians to be of interest:

"Early Christianity was little understood and was regarded
with little favor by those who ruled the pagan world....
Christians refused to share certain duties of Roman
citizens....They would not hold political office." On the
Road to Civilization, A World History( Philadelphia, Chicago,
etc.; 1937) Albert K. Heckel and James G. Sigman, pp 237,238.

"Zealous Christians did not serve in the armed forces or
accept political offices." - World History, The Story of Man's
achievements (River Forest, Ill.; 1962), Habberton, Roth and 
Spears p117.

"While among Romans it was considered the highest honor to
possess the privileges of Roman citizenship, the Christians
announced that they were citizens of heaven. They shrank from
public office and military service." 'Persecution of the 
Christians in Gaul, AD 177' by F.P.G. Guizot, former prime
minister of France, Vol III of the Great Events by Famous
Historians (New York; 1905), Rossiter Johnson, ed., p246.

"The Christians were strangers and pilgrims in the world
around them; their citizenship was in heaven; the kingdom
to which they looked was not of this world. The consequent
want of interest in public affairs came thus from the outset
to be a noticeable feature in Christianity." Christianity and
the Roman Government (London 1925) E.G. Hardy, Principal of
Jesus College, Oxford, p39.

"The Christians stood aloof and distinct from the state, as
a priestly and spiritual race, and Christianity seemed able
to influence civil life only in that manner it confessed, is
the purest, by practically endeavouring to instil more and
more of holy feeling into the state." The History of the 
Christian Religion and Church, During the Three First Centuries
(New York; 1848) Dr. Augustus Neander, translated from the
German by H.J. Rose, p168.


Now I can understand that one might feel that one of the ways
to improve things in soceity is through politics. However, a
Christian should note that Daniel 2:44 indicates that God's
heavenly kingdom or government will bring an end to all other
forms of governments by crushing them. Now keeping in mind
Jesus' illustrations found at Matthew 9:16,17 about mending
old worn out garments or wineskins. God has deemed it necessary
to bring an end to all political systems and replace them with
a heavenly kingdom. Why would a Christian put any effort into
trying to mend or improve things in the current political arena,
(old wineskin) when his primary concern would be the promotion 
of God's kingdom(new wineskin) ?(compare Matthew 24:14,28:19,20). 
Knowing that only the Prince of Peace, king of God's Kingdom, 
will be the one whom will bring an end to mankinds ill's. All of 
mankinds efforts to bring peace and security in his own strength 
will fail (compare Jeremiah 10:23), so any efforts on man's part 
will be in vain. 

A more sinister reason for avoiding politics, which often is termed
wordly politics, is that "The whole world is lying in the power
of the wicked one." 1 John 5:19 NWT. Politics is one of the elements
that Satan "is misleading the entire inhabtied earth." Revelation 12:9.
Luke 4:2-7 shows that Satan controls political governments, for Jesus 
never questioned his authority to offer over their control for an act 
of worship on Jesus' part.

Phil.


Compilation of quotations of historians taken from book "Make Sure of All 
Things Hold Fast To What Is Fine" PP 353,354.

    
    Phil,
    
    Your argument is totally flawed and your evidence does not support your
    original statement.
    
    Very quickly, John 17 is by no stretch of the imagination about
    politics, plain and simple.  Secondly, only two verses after 17:16
    Jesus says: "As Thou didst send Me into the world, I also have sent
    them into the world."
    
    So what we have is you arguing that Jesus set the example in 17:16 by
    saying "They are no part of the world, just as I am no part of the
    world", then arguing from this phrase to the idea that "the world"
    includes politics and Jesus was setting an example about rejecting
    politics.  This in itself is a completely unacceptable argument.  But
    the fact that two verses later Jesus says, "...I also have sent them
    into the world..." clearly contradicts your original argument about the
    meaning of verse 16.
    
    And on top of all of that, you have all of the Bible, both Old and New
    Testament, and most all of orthodox Christianities' history at odds with 
    your unorthodox view.  Remember Moses, Joseph, Saul, David...the
    providential use of the civil magistrate as described by Paul, and so
    on.
    
    jeff

.21

>    Isaiah 9:6 is speaking of Jesus...do we agree on this?
    
>    If so, then the first part of the verse is speaking of a baby, so we
>    know that Jesus was born of Mary and was a baby.  But in Jesus' first
>    coming, he was not a ruler.  Jesus came as one to suffer for the sins
>    of many, a sacrificial lamb.  Jesus will one day rule!

Again, I question the validity a "part now and part later" rationalization.
It smacks of theological retrofitting.

Richard

.7

>    >Does the date "April 19" sound familiar?
    
>    No. Enlighten me.

Does the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City ring a bell?

.26

Jeff,

Sorry, but your reply has lost me.

;   Very quickly, John 17 is by no stretch of the imagination about
;   politics, plain and simple.  Secondly, only two verses after 17:16
;   Jesus says: "As Thou didst send Me into the world, I also have sent
;   them into the world."
    
;   So what we have is you arguing that Jesus set the example in 17:16 by
;   saying "They are no part of the world, just as I am no part of the
;   world", then arguing from this phrase to the idea that "the world"
;   includes politics and Jesus was setting an example about rejecting
;   politics.  This in itself is a completely unacceptable argument.  But
;   the fact that two verses later Jesus says, "...I also have sent them
;   into the world..." clearly contradicts your original argument about the
;   meaning of verse 16.

Well I see no contradiction, Jesus' comment later in John 18:36 NWT "My
kingdom is no part of this world. If my kingdom was part of this world,
my attendants would have fought that I should not be delivered up to
the Jews. But, as it is, my kingdom is not from this source." so he was
making clear that his kingdom was no part of this world. This comment would 
be meaningless if as you say "John 17 is by no stretch of the imagination
about politics, plain and simple". That is if we view kingdom by it's
meaning of being a realm.

Jesus was not contradicting himself when he said he he was no part of the
world, but had been sent into the world. He had come from the heavenly
realm and belonged to that, even so he had been sent to the earth to do God's
will in preaching and teaching about God's kingdom (compare Mathhew 4:17).
Similarly, as per the historians comments that I quoted, early Christians
viewed their citizenship as being in the heavens and not in this world.
Jesus sent them forth into the world to preach and teach about God's kingdom
(Matthew 28:19,20) but not to be part of it. There were sent as ambassadors
of the heavenly realm, just as your American ambassabor in London is not
part of the United Kingdom but he represents the interests of the USA.

Jeff, a question I would ask you is, where do you view your citizenship to be?.

;  And on top of all of that, you have all of the Bible, both Old and New
;  Testament, and most all of orthodox Christianities' history at odds with 
;  your unorthodox view.  Remember Moses, Joseph, Saul, David...the
;  providential use of the civil magistrate as described by Paul, and so
;  on.

Saul and David were kings in God's kingdom on earth. Jehovah has now established
a heavenly kingdom, Paul viewed his citizenship in the heavens and not of this 
world (compare Phillipians 3:20). This was the view of all the early Christians,
so you might want to expand on "the providential use of the civil magistrate as
described by Paul, and so on.".

Jeff, do you believe that the heavenly kingdom is a literal realm? . If not I can
see why we differ and you find my arguements difficult to accept.

Phil.  

    
    Hi Phil,
    
    It is enough to say that John 17 is not talking about politics.  It is
    enough to say that in the OT Christians held government office in 
    worldly administrations by God's design and approval.  It is enough to
    say that the history of orthodox Christianity is filled with examples
    of Christians serving worldly govts.
    
    My focus, in case you've lost sight, was on your fallacious argument
    from John 17:16 "to Christians shouldn't hold political office" [sic]. 
    
    jeff

RE .30

Jeff,

;    It is enough to say that John 17 is not talking about politics.  It is
;    enough to say that in the OT Christians held government office in 
;   worldly administrations by God's design and approval.  It is enough to
;   say that the history of orthodox Christianity is filled with examples
;   of Christians serving worldly govts.

Have professing Christians always served in worldly governments?, what
is the history of early Christians (see previous replies).
    
I don't understand why you insist that "world" in John 17:16
would not include the faction of politics. A dictionary definition
has one meaning of "a domain or realm;" and another "the course
of human affairs", "the concerns of earthly existence or secular
affairs as distinguished from heaven and the life to come or 
religious and ecclesiastical matters" . The word worldly has a 
meaning of "of or devoted to this world and its pursuits rather 
than to religion or spiritual affairs." 

It would be inconceivable to view Jesus as a leader or member
of any political party today, for he is the king of God's 
kingdom or government. Anointed Christians have died to their 
previous course and their concerns are no longer for worldly 
affairs but for this heavenly government, including spiritual 
matters. As a Jehovah's Witness we stay neutral when it comes 
to politics.

I have no more to say on the subject, only time will tell what
Jesus meant by "world" in John 17:16 (compare 1 John 2:15-17 and
James 4:4).

Phil. 
 

    
>I don't understand why you insist that "world" in John 17:16
>would not include the faction of politics.
    
    I did not say that.  I said that Christ was not speaking about politics
    as His subject. By Christ saying He was not part of the world nor
    were his followers, does not mean they do not live in the world or are
    not to be involved in the world which is impossible anyway.  It
    only means that they are not of the world as unbelievers are. 
    Furthermore, Jesus goes on two verses later to send His followers into
    the world.  If world includes politics then it is clear, using your
    logic, that Christ was sending His followers into politics and
    everything else in the world.
    
    Concerning Jehovah Witnesses and your stance described here I would
    have to argue that you are not neutral at all concerning politics but
    rather strongly against it.
    
    jeff 

re .32

Jeff,

>I don't understand why you insist that "world" in John 17:16
>would not include the faction of politics.
    
;    I did not say that.  I said that Christ was not speaking about politics
;    as His subject.


Sorry but I didn't mean to give you the impression that his subject
was just politics. As I understand it, the "world" that Jesus spoke 
of in John 17:16 is that which is under Satan's control (compare 
1 John 5:19). This world would include such things as debased entertainment. 

;Furthermore, Jesus goes on two verses later to send His followers into
;the world.  If world includes politics then it is clear, using your
;logic, that Christ was sending His followers into politics and
;everything else in the world.

No, I disagree this is your logic. When Jesus sent is followers into
the world he wasn't sending them to practice the things of the world, 
but to be bright lights in a spiritually darkened world. 

;   Concerning Jehovah Witnesses and your stance described here I would
;   have to argue that you are not neutral at all concerning politics but
;   rather strongly against it.

We live in the world, and therefore attempt to be model citizens paying
our taxes and law abiding as long as it doesn't conflict with God's
standards. However, we have no partiality between the  political parties 
and therefore are neutral. 


Phil.