vote for me or burn
Now this is an election strategy!
“AS ISRAEL goes to the polls today, the spiritual leader of the country’s largest Jewish religious party is promising heaven to those who vote for him and hell to anyone who supports acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.
Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, 86, spiritual leader of the ultra-Orthodox Sephardic Jewish party Shas, has issued an election flyer based on passages from the Book of Judges and Deuteronomy: “cursed be its inhabitants for not having come to God’s aid” and “cursed be those who do not uphold and obey the words of this law”.
He adds: “I hereby issue a religious ruling that everyone must vote for Shas.”"
Read the full article in the age here
March 28th, 2006 at 9:10 am
The religious right in America are waiting to see how that works
the rev
March 28th, 2006 at 12:03 pm
At least they don’t go around trying to influence elections while refusing to vote.
March 28th, 2006 at 12:38 pm
He also said that if the other party were voted in that they would, ‘boil babies in vats of boiling water’! This guy is a looooonatic except, the more I think about it, it sounds a little like throwing children overboard.
March 28th, 2006 at 7:58 pm
lovestha,
what are you talking about?
the rev
March 29th, 2006 at 7:55 am
I assume LovesTha is referring to the Exclusive Brethren church, who do not take part in politics (this includes not voting) but lately have supported election campaigns of conservative parties all over the western world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_Brethren has a section about this.
March 29th, 2006 at 9:02 am
Sorry, my out look on current affairs is rather skewed as my only significant input is TripleJ’s Hack program. Which recently celebrated the 5 year aniversary of the last time John Howard spoke to TripleJ.
March 29th, 2006 at 9:03 am
And yes I was talking about the Exclusive Brethren.
March 29th, 2006 at 9:11 am
Thanks,
Didn’t know about that. I don’t vote, but won’t try to influence politics either.
the rev
March 29th, 2006 at 9:19 am
How come you don’t vote Rev - not an Australian citizen I guess, but do you vote in US elections whilst over here?
March 29th, 2006 at 9:27 am
No, I believe there is no kingdom but Gods, and that to partake in the political process is to become part of an illegitimate structure of power. I believe that we do not have to overthrow these powers, nor do we have to fight against them directly, but rather that in small communities we may live in defiance of these power structures, in equality, communal living, and shared responsiblity. In so doing we secure the dignity and justice of our only true king, Jesus. And by our doing this in front of the world, call them to a radical redefinition of power.
the rev
March 29th, 2006 at 9:55 am
That is a very radical approach -not one without attraction though. How would that work if no-one voted or if no christian voted an we were only left with peopoe who voted - say One Nation and due to our non-involvement we were left with a very real power and authoiry that was distatsteful to the point of being abhorrant?
March 29th, 2006 at 10:28 am
Well, isn’t that what Rome was? And it seemed Jesus strategy was to subvert Rome from the grass roots, (I do believe Christ’s aim was first spiritual, but I do not discount the political desire of his plan)
Gandhi showed us in modern times what can happen if peace loving, non violent opposition is willing to stand up against imperialistic power. Especially in todays world of video and photogragh. We are called to be salt and light to the world, a subversive community that changes things from the inside.
the rev
March 29th, 2006 at 12:02 pm
I know that you are an anarchist. But I can’t believe that power in and of itself requires subverting. What about render unto Caesar?
Your response above seems to indicate that if noone voted or became involved, then the government would become a very real power which was abhorrent and your response is “isn’t that what Rome was?”
So do we need to create Rome in order to subvert it? Wouldn’t it be better for all concerned if we intervened to prevent our government from becoming like Rome?
March 29th, 2006 at 12:17 pm
Dan,
What you are saying makes sense, but I do not believe it is the way that Christ calls us. We can in communities of people make governments bow down, just as Gandhi did. Peaceful non co-operation can do amazing things.
Now please do not take me as suggesting that we should become like Rome, I was pointing out that in a place like Rome, Jesus’ political stategy was to bring the new kingdom, which was not of this world. This eventually brought down Rome, unfortunately, the Church accepted the power, and who could blame them, when it was offered. And became a power structure themeselves.
I hardly think Jesus message about the tax was conclusive. And I take it to mean, if you are gonna play in the system then you have to pay the piper. But remember, this was not a teaching of Jesus, but rather an answer to a trick question designed to get Him in hot water no matter what the answer was.
I do believe that we should participate in governance, but not in a position of power, but mutual respect and brotherhood. I also am not so naive to think this is possible as a world system, someone will always rise up and take the power, it is the nature of man. I also believe this nature is a fallen nature. When we study the passage in Ezekiel that many believe is describing Satan we find one that want the power, “I will exalt myself” Jesus, the only legitimate holder of power, refuses to use it.
As to power, needing to be subverted, that probably didn’t come out right. I believe that power is only legitimate when it flows from relationship, not force, fear, or manipulation. When Jesus said, “my kingdom is not of this world” and “see how the leaders of this world lead by power, you are not to be like them” The coalition of Christians to take political power is and always will be a recipe for corruption. When Christians publically say, we will not stand for injustice, and put themselves in danger in oppostion to injustice, a power that is much greater, a spiritual power is unleashed. And this relies on God to change the hearts of the oppressors.
Now, would this work against Hitler and the nazi power? I would guess probably not, but I would choose to harbour jews, and stand in defiance of the tyranny even at the cost of my own life, rather than pick up arms to fight him.
the rev
March 29th, 2006 at 8:18 pm
Rev
I think you raise some significant issues.But one thing I’m trying to understand is the difference between “governance”, which you believe you can paricipate in,but “power” which you will not participate in by not voting.
The way a community is ordered is more than just about power. Which ever political party is in government, schools will be built,hospitals resourced,roads built etc.
Do Christians have no responsibility to play a role in ensuring thru the democratic process(voting,political party membership etc) that the poor do have access to good schools,hospitals etc?
If the poor are the priority of the gospel,then at every level,from ones coat to classrooms,Christians need to be active.How do you respond to the charge of bludging on the system.
My guess is that you are probably a lot more honest than a lot of Christians who turn up to vote because they have to,but would never join a political party,join a tennis club or dog obedience school but never a union.
Dan says you’e an anarchist, are there anarchist christians with their own organisation,journal etc like the christian socialists!
March 29th, 2006 at 8:31 pm
Yes there are, you can look on jesusradicals.com to learn more about Christian anarchy. I home schooled my children and they are very well prepared for life, it would appear to me that empowering people at a grass roots level, and meeting their needs on a grass roots level is always more practical than huge programs. As far as bludging, I am not sure what you mean I have never heard that word, but I would guess you are talking about being a leech based on the context. If this is what you mean, I pay taxes on my wages like anyone else, but I take no government services. It would seem I drain the system less than anyone else.
Ofcourse by refusing to join the modern lust for money, my taxable income is very very small and I don’t actually give much to the government because of that.
Now I don’t speak for all anarchists, and most would I belive consider a true democratic socialst government to be the best. I have my own beliefs, and though they may seem very impractical to most, I have found them to be true in my life. When a group of twenty teenagers are able to feed for a week and give presents to seven whole families, it makes me think we can do far more than we think we can, if we follow the Kingdom.
the rev
March 29th, 2006 at 8:47 pm
Rev,
By quoting Gandhi and non-violence does that imply that you think all forms of violence are wrong? Inclusing extreme fighting and hunting?
Hashish
March 29th, 2006 at 8:53 pm
Well ofcourse you would know that I do not think extreme fighting is wrong, but neither do I consider it violence. I do not believe hunting for sport is right, but I would not have a problem doing it for food and hides.
I believe that fighting is a sport, it is actually much less dangerous than boxing, and is in my opinion no different from footy, rugby or any other contact sport. If you would like the long version of my answer to this critique, I can give it to you, but again I do not consider it violence.
the rev
March 30th, 2006 at 6:44 am
“I believe that power is only legitimate when it flows from relationship, not force, fear, or manipulation.”
But then, it wouldn’t be power. All power is backed up by force, not relationship. Why aren’t you interested in power, Rev?
God is - those who do not desire a relationship with God are going to be sent to hell by God’s power. God will get his way in the end. Surely this is ultimate power, and the finality of God’s love. It symbolises the predominance of power over relationship.
March 30th, 2006 at 6:49 am
God is the only legitimate power Kieren, but I disagree with your cliched understanding of hell.
The perfectness of God, and the holiness of His love, allows Him to transcend the boundries of many things. God can be jealous, and still love, even though the scriptures say this is not love. The reason is because God’s jealousy is a jealousy that is born of other interest not self interest. God’s jealousy is for our benefit, as God know only in Him are we completed, and fulfilled.
the rev
March 30th, 2006 at 8:10 am
You’re adding a bullying element to God’s love, somewhat softened by the mysterious transcendence (which somehow excuses God from normal polite standards of behaviour?).
If I listen to an Amway distributor, I don’t expect to be bullyed into accepting the plan and joining a distribution group. Maybe it’s not a good example, but you know what I mean. I’m not rejecting the Amway distributor - I may still maintain a cordial relationship with her - I’m just saying thanks, but no thanks. God, on the other hand, won’t just take no for an answer. He gets into a jealous rage (for our benefit?) and sends us to hell.
March 30th, 2006 at 9:25 am
First off, the jealousy bit does not go with the hell bit, different ideas, just explaining God’s transcendence.
Second, if the product you are offering is eternal life, and the customer decided not to accept your offer, then they my the very nature of the product do not receive eternal life. My concept of hell is not the same as yours I would venture.
the rev
March 30th, 2006 at 10:19 am
Hell is described in the bible as a place where the occupants are in great pain. It is not merely non-existence. So what happens to those who reject the offer of eternal life? They get eternal suffering. Hell is about God exerting power, not influence through relationship.
March 30th, 2006 at 10:51 am
Well, we can argue about the nature of hell if you like, but tell me this how can you be in physical pain if you have no physical body?
If hell exists in the dante’s inferno way, then it is possible that you are correct, but… I not only do not think of hell that way, nor do I feel my arguement is irreconcilable if it is.
Now, if my child is going to touch the hot stove I can use force to stop them from hurting themselves. Now it would appear your arguement is more about God not using his power in this instance. But I also could yell, “don’t touch that” but still then leave the choice up to the child. If the child therefore touches the hot stove, you cannot hold the parent guilty for using power, but rather not using it. Now even though the fire was made in the stove by me, it was not for the purpose of burning the child it was to warm and cook, but the choice of the child to wind up suffering for this is still there. Also, it is my opinion that God, not being contenct to warn us about the hot stove, limited Himself to become one of us. And then though He knew all about the hot stove, allowed himself to be burnt by it anyways, so that we could see the danger thereof. It is not the use of force that you are not happy with, but rather the refusal to use force.
Which is a fair and difficult arguement.
the rev
March 30th, 2006 at 11:49 am
Perhaps the pain signifies spiritual separation or something else. The point is, the “dwellers in hell” are in a situation not of their own volition, but because of the power of God.
A better analogy is if you offer to your child to celebrate her birthday at McDonalds, but your child rejects it because that is so “uncool”, do you get into a fit of rage because you like hamburgers so much? Of course not.
You, Rev, might be see the Christian life as all about compassion and helping the disadvantaged and living communally, but don’t you also need to warn people about God’s wrath and the dire consequences of the last judgement?
Where’s the hell-fire preaching gone today?
March 30th, 2006 at 11:56 am
I do not believe anyone I have ever met has accepted Jesus because they were scared of hell.
Also, if you ask me what I believe, then you have to accept my analogies or metaphors. You cannot make me accept yours, or tell me mine is incorrect. I believe that my metaphor perfectly describes my point of view, if you don’t like my point of view fine, if you don’t agree with it fine, but do not tell me what my point of view really is.
As to your first statement, I disagree with you.
the rev
March 30th, 2006 at 12:46 pm
You talk about God offering eternal life (like offering a product), and then use the analogy of warning a child about the dangers of a hot stove. What is the connection? Is God warning us about not accepting his offer of eternal life?
Should I change my example to offering a child a bicycle for a birthday present, and threating to punish him if he refuses? The child may not be interesting in bicycles (he might even be a quadraplegic), but, by hell, he’s going to get it if he refuses that bicycle.
March 30th, 2006 at 9:35 pm
Only if your analogy includes the caviat that if the kid doesn’t want the bicycle his “punishment” is not getting to feel the wind in his hair as he races down the street.
the rev
June 1st, 2006 at 1:05 pm
Why would a boxer kiss another boxer? Cause he wanted to get knocked out! Ouch: http://www.monkeybriefs.com/view.video.php?id=916&no=11420&cat=Fights&page=1
June 2nd, 2006 at 6:00 am
That was an interesting link there, Rev, jesusradicals.com I never realized that a movement like that existed. I think that I’ll just go for the radical and leave the anarchy-part, although I tend to agree with one of the statements on the site:we do believe that when Christianity is lived rightly it looks a lot like anarchism There is so much conformity in christian communities everywhere - it’s really not hard to understand why some people can have a hard time believing Jesus is for real… I much prefer “getting in trouble with the christians for not representing the community” to getting in trouble with the ones looking for Jesus for not being anything like him!